Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Tom Cox: I want in this debate to talk about child welfare and protection, issues that, in view of recent court cases, should be raised in the House before the Christmas recess. The subject involves us all. I am sure that hon. Members will have been appalled and sickened by the latest court case involving a young child, who was abused for a long time and who died from her injuries. She was killed by her mother's boy-friend, who last week was convicted of her murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; the mother was convicted of cruelty and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The case was heard at Norwich Crown court; the jury listened to the most appalling history of violence that the five-year-old girl had suffered for a long time.
Hon. Members from both sides of the House know that such events happen far too often. I found it appalling that the very organisations that were supposed to protect the youngster failed abysmally to do so. I am sure that those hon. Members who represent Norfolk constituencies will be asking themselves searching questions, as the social services, the health authority, the police and the RAF—the tragedy happened in RAF accommodation—all let down the youngster appallingly.
Last week, we also heard details of child abuse in Newcastle, where it is said that some 60 children were abused while they were in care. The council is now saying that hundreds of children may have suffered sexual and physical abuse in its care.
On 1 December, I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to say how many men and women had been sent to prison in England and Wales in the past three years for cruelty to children. I was told that there were 398 cases in 1995, 498 in 1996 and 581 in 1997. I stress that those figures apply only to England and Wales; there has plainly been a substantial increase in child cruelty in the past three years in two of the countries that form the United Kingdom.
I am pleased that you are still in the Chair, Madam Speaker, because, many years ago, we served at the same time on the London borough of Hammersmith, whose children's committee I chaired. I now serve as a member of the British parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe; I chair the social, health and family affairs committee of that Parliamentary Assembly. The committee considers all kinds of family issues in the 40 member states, but the welfare and protection of children, whatever their age, is our top priority.
That is why I am so concerned about the two cases that I have mentioned. I believe that I have a right, as a Member of Parliament, to ask why such tragic cases continue to occur. I am sure that we can all remember similar cases over the years in which youngsters were brutalised for long periods; many of them, sadly, died from the beatings and suffering that they were forced to endure.
Every time that such a case was heard in court, we were told: "We really must learn from this tragedy. There must be closer co-operation and a better exchange of information. At the first signs of abuse, action will be taken." Those things certainly did not happen in the recent case of the five-year-old girl in Norfolk.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am listening with great attention to the hon. Gentleman, and I share much of his anxiety. Does he agree that, in addition to much better co-ordination and co-operation between the agencies, what this country needs more than anything is a change in the whole public attitude towards children and towards child abuse? Is not that even more important?

Mr. Cox: I fully agree that we need a combination of a much greater awareness of the evils of child abuse with much greater co-ordination of the organisations that are in place to protect children. However, many of those organisations, sadly, fall down in that area. We must not simply ask authorities about the procedures that they should be following, but demand that they follow those procedures—whether they involve education services, health services, social services or the police.
When I chaired the children's committee of the London borough of Hammersmith, I had a clear policy. All officers dealing with children would, at the first sign of concern for the welfare of a youngster, report that case to me. It was my responsibility, in co-ordination with social workers, to keep a close eye on the well-being of that child.
I accept that many social services departments are under great pressure. When they investigate concerns within a family, they are often told that youngsters with bruising on their bodies fell down the stairs, caught their faces on the table or fell down while playing. We know that youngsters do those things, but social services departments must take a far tougher approach when there are concerns about a family.
Very often, abused children who make known their suffering are told, "We just do not believe you." We know that children do lie; I am sure that all of us told fibs as children. However, when youngsters' bodies are covered with bruises, they are not lying. They did not obtain those bruises simply by falling down or by playing around at home. Case after case shows that children have been seriously brutalised by the mother, the father or the boy-friend of the mother. That concerns me greatly.
I wish to refer to the number of cases appearing in our courts where youngsters in residential care have been abused, either physically or sexually, by the clergy or by those responsible for their welfare. This morning's The Daily Telegraph carries a report of the case of a man who was the house parent at a Barnardos home who was sentenced at York Crown court yesterday to 11 years' imprisonment for sexually abusing children in his care over some seven years.
In another case in the courts at the moment, the prosecution has said that a clergyman charged with the abuse of children
knew they would be very unlikely to make any complaint. Their word against that of a priest would not be believed.
Knowing that he had that protection, virtual immunity from discovery, he committed sexual offences against young people in a calculated and callous manner.
Sadly, we hear of such cases more and more. I hope that we will start to listen to youngsters who express concerns, because when such cases are concluded in our courts, many of the youngsters who have been abused—many of whom are now middle-aged—say that while the abuse was occurring, no one ever listened to them or believed them.
All of us are deeply shocked and appalled by the cases that we hear about in our courts. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will, in the coming year, propose legislation to compel authorities to follow the tough and constructive guidelines for the protection of young children—whether at home or in residential care—that I hope my right hon. Friend will introduce. We have heard of far too many cases in recent years of the most appalling abuse of children. It is time that a country such as ours did everything possible to stop that abuse.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I start by congratulating the newest member of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his Front-Bench appointment—an appointment so new that most of us had not heard about it until this morning.
There can be a strange irony in debates such as this, where colleagues do not know the issues that one another will raise. This is a wide-ranging debate, and speeches can spread across the whole sphere of Government policy. I wish to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) in my main theme, which involves child care and child protection. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise that matter, but the concerns that he raised will be shared across the House.
I have a different constituency case which, although it is of a similar nature, is not as horrendous as the cases to which the hon. Member for Tooting referred. It concerns the care of children, and the role that grandparents often play in looking after their grandchildren in certain circumstances. As this matter relates to Derby city council, I raised it with the Leader of the House a few days ago—I thought that she might be replying to the debate—to set out my concerns. The case involves the way in which grandparents have stepped into the breach and, I believe, have saved and will save social services a great deal of money by looking after their granddaughter, who otherwise might be put in care.
I wish to outline the circumstances of the case, but I will not be mentioning any names, as I want to deal with the general principle rather than the individual. In July 1998, the Derby city council social worker who had been involved in the case for four years reported that the mother was a drug addict and could no longer care for her

two children—a daughter aged 11 and another very young daughter. The grandparents stepped in and have been looking after the eldest girl on a semi-permanent basis.
A case conference was held. The grandfather said:
The conference apparently recommended that both children should be the subject of 'care and protection' proceedings and removed from their mother's custody.
Long-term problems were discussed, as the grandparents felt that they could look after only the elder child, because of the great stress involved. The grandfather's letter continues:
The social services worker told us that once care proceedings had been taken we would be 'vetted' and become foster parents…and would receive a monthly cash allowance towards her keep.
In September 1998 when nothing appeared to be happening…we again spoke to the social worker. She informed us that her senior line manager had decided that 'care' proceedings would only be taken in respect of
the younger girl.
It was stated that if we wished we could take a 'residence order' out in respect of
the elder girl
(at our expense), and also we could expect no financial support or assistance for
her
care whatsoever. The rationale behind the decision being that if she stayed with us she would not be at threat (though she still remains on the 'at risk' register) and therefore there was no need to take out "care' proceedings in respect of her.
On 25th September, 1998, I had a telephone conversation with
Derby city social services,
to ask us if we could care for
the younger child as well,
as they were unable to find foster parents. I declined to accept…but went on to mention our concerns about lack of progress regarding our financial position with
the elder child. The social worker
wrote to us on the 12th October 1998, and I spoke to her by telephone on the 24th. She listened to what I had to say and promised she would respond…within 14 days. I have never received any letter or further telephone calls from her.
How do they expect us to finance everything…without some form of support? Surely the bringing up of
the girl
should be a shared partnership with all parties contributing towards decisions…
The financial implications…concern us greatly. My wife has no income whatsoever. I am on a pension, having been retired for nine years. We are not even in receipt of child benefit.
I hope that the child benefit will be sorted out soon. The letter continues:
We have no public transport near our home so we have to transport
the girl
to and from school every day and sometimes more than once if she has special events at school.
We have just fitted
her
out with a new school uniform when she started senior school in September. Application for retrospective financial assistance for this uniform was refused. Clothes, food, pocket money, guides, drama classes, dancing classes, everyday expenses, mean we now have to seriously deprive ourselves of little luxuries (no foreign holiday this


year). The whole cost of her life is such that we feel hurt and angry with the impact it is having on us. The school is organising a trip to Germany…We were forced to tell
the girl
that we could not afford the trip—application for financial assistance for this was also refused.
What hits me about this case is the fact that if the grandparents refused to take responsibility for the child, it would create a major expense for Derby city social services. The grandparents' good offices are being used, if not abused. If elderly people need to be looked after in a home, attendance allowance can be claimed. It seems a great pity that no such allowance is made when grandparents take over in loco parentis.
There are questions in the case that disturb both the grandparents and myself. I hope that they can be speedily resolved. I was encouraged by the story in The Times on 5 November, under the headline,
Straw aims to put focus on the family
which specifically mentioned grandparents. In the review that is taking place, we need clearer guidelines on what should happen in cases such as the one I have cited.
I have no doubt that Derby city council has sufficient flexibility under the current rules to pay an allowance to the grandparents as carers. That should happen. The child is being looked after far better by her grandparents than she would be in a foster home, especially considering the disruption that she has already experienced.
It is a great pity that the most sensible solution, provided by the grandparents, is to some extent being abused by the city council, which is relying on their good will and on the fact that, although they are not wealthy, the grandfather has a modest pension from the public sector, in which he worked for many years in a fairly distinguished role. I seek an assurance that the Government will consider the matter seriously.
My next point may not elicit as much sympathy from the Minister. This has been an unusual year; I am speaking of the calendar rather than the parliamentary year. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is here. Before the general election, he and his colleagues travelled around Derbyshire telling everyone that Labour would get a fair deal for Derbyshire and all our problems would be sorted out by the new, vibrant—well, he might not have used those words—Labour party; so it was astounding to me that this year was the one in which the Government decided to cap the county council.
We went through 18 years of Conservative government in which the council was capped only once. Within a year of a new Labour Government, they had managed to match that record of capping Derbyshire once. They capped it to the tune of £1 million. To an individual, £1 million is a lot of money, but in a budget of £470 million it does not have much bearing on the overall costing.
The capping has resulted in rebilling every household, which has cost an estimated £320,000. It was a token gesture, and I consider it deplorable. The people in Amber Valley have still not had their new bills. Is it a sign of new Labour efficiency that, almost six months after the capping, we still do not have our new bills? By the time we get them, it will be time for the bills for next year's council tax. That is wholly regrettable. The cut for 40 per cent. of the properties is £2.82; more than that will be

spent on postage and printing. The move was ridiculous and nonsensical, and is typical of the Labour Government's approach to local government finance, which they have not thought through. We wait with interest to see what happens over the next year.
Child care is a very important issue. I hope that when the Government consider it, they will also consider some of the wider implications of what I have said today about whether it is necessary or desirable for each city or county council to be able to set its own guidelines and rules, when they should really be working within a national framework.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am delighted to make a brief speech this morning, but first I wish to join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his sneaky elevation to high office. I was green with envy and wondered what he has that I have not, but the answer is, of course, that he has a beard. I had thought that beards represented old Liberalism, but I am rethinking my position and my turn may come in 2000.
The House should not adjourn until we have had a statement on the future of a freedom of information Act. That has become important because the coalition between Tory peers and Labour Front Benchers is now working and we were promised an early freedom of information Act if that were the case. The Labour party has rightly promised a freedom of information Act for the past 25 years. As each of the secrecy scandals—Ponting, Tisdall, "Spycatcher", Matrix Churchill, Pergau, BSE and cash for questions—broke, we said that everything would be different under Labour, because we would have a freedom of information Act. We put it in our manifesto in 1974, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992 and 1997; it is probably unique in the history of broken manifesto promises in lasting 25 years. I hope that before the House rises, we shall have a statement to say that the manifesto promise will be kept in 1999.
I know that I have the Prime Minister's support, because he is often quoted as saying that a freedom of information Act is not an add-on, but essential to Labour's thinking. He has said that such a change
is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years…It would also signal a culture change that would make a dramatic difference to the way that Britain is governed.
It is also important that an Act should be introduced early in this Government's term of office, rather than later, because once Ministers have been in office for a while they tend to become more cautious. They tend to think that a freedom of information Act might arm their critics. If we should have an economic downturn, which I hope that we do not, Ministers will become ever more cautious. Therefore, the sooner an Act is introduced and the sooner we have a statement, either today or tomorrow, the better.
A freedom of information Act would answer all those smears about new Labour being run by spin doctors and control freaks. We know that there are no spin doctors and no control freaks in new Labour. An announcement today on a freedom of information Act would get rid of all the banter. It is good fun, but it has become a little tedious.
The concomitant of a freedom of information Act is a fair, responsible and independent press. Therefore, I hope that we shall have some time between now and Christmas to consider the claim that Dominic Lawson, the editor of The Sunday Telegraph, is a paid MI6 agent. That is an odd claim and would be very damaging for the press if it were true. The allegation has been made by Richard Tomlinson and I have no idea whether it is true, but we should consider it. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would respond to those two points.

Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly about a threat to our democracy that arises from the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, which has just reached the statute book. I know that it has just reached the statute book because I received a letter from the registrar asking, rather flatteringly, whether I wished to register myself as a political party. Alongside that, I saw a press release from the Home Office which said that under the terms of the Act it is not possible to register as an Independent. That is strange, because I stood in the election as an Independent and I sit in the House as an Independent. What else should I be? The Tatton Park party, the Flat Earth party or the Knutsford Heath party? It does not make sense.
My complaint is not, however, on my own behalf, but on behalf of many other independent-minded members of established parties. One of the provisions of the Act is that certain qualifiers may not be attached to the name of an established party, and one of those qualifiers is "Independent". From now on, it will be against the law to stand as Independent Labour, Independent Conservative or Independent Liberal Democrat. That clause arose from the Literal Democrat fiasco, when an individual stood as a Literal Democrat deliberately to confuse the voters and so far succeeded in doing so as to draw enough votes from the Liberal Democrats to cost them a seat in the European Parliament.
However, the provision was extended in such a way as to prohibit the right of an individual who has fallen out with his party to stand as an independent member of that party. Suppose, for example, he votes against the party Whip once too often, is seen in Westminster during a constituency week, fails to answer the vibrations of his pager or upsets his local constituency party. For one of those reasons or a combination, he might be deselected and might, rightly, wish to fight for his seat under the label of Independent Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat.
In the extraordinary circumstances of the Tatton election, in May last year, a well-established member of the Tatton Conservative Association, who was not happy with the way things were going, thought seriously of standing as an Independent Conservative. I wished that he would not and told him so—and he did not—but he had a right to do so. If that situation were repeated, he would no longer have a right to do so.
The Act also applies to local government. There is an Independent Labour group on Hull city council, with three elected members and two who have crossed the floor. They will no longer be able to stand as Independent

Labour. I have nothing against parties. They are necessary for Government and may even be necessary for Opposition, but some space must be given to free spirits, independent-minded people and people a little outside the system, such as citizen politicians. They do not threaten the system, but reinforce it by adding legitimacy to the members of established parties who get elected.
Threats to our democracy come in many forms and sometimes arise from not very large issues. Yesterday, in the Ecclesiastical Committee, we fought off and blocked a move by the Church Synod to allow a bishop to suspend a church warden for up to two years for a cause that seemed to the bishop to be good and reasonable, which is the very language of the abuse of power. We have had a democracy of one kind or another for hundreds of years and this was the first time that a person elected by many could have been removed by one.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we have not yet seen off that proposal?

Mr. Bell: We have not, but my goodness, we will. If it comes to the Floor of the House, we shall make a mighty fight of it.
As I have said, one threat to our democracy comes from the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, and another comes from a measure that is being railroaded through now—the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—which seems to have come straight out of the rule book of the old Albanian Communist party. In both cases, the interests of parties are being put ahead of the rights of individuals. On all those issues, as on many others, we in this House stand on the ramparts of democracy and we have a duty to defend them.

Mr. Ian Stewart: I am grateful for the opportunity to make some comments on regional government and regeneration in the north-west of England. I have been keen to do so for some time, but first I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his well-deserved promotion. In the north-west, we have a strong regional identity and we can show that a track record of successful partnership already exists between Members of Parliament and key public and private stakeholders. For example, in 1994 we created the North-West Partnership, which has now smoothly evolved into the North-West regional chamber. We developed a north-west regional economic strategy in 1993 and revised it in 1996, and developed a family of strategies on transport, human resource development, social inclusion and economic development. We have also developed a regional innovation and technology plan, and a regional rail strategy is in preparation.
We have created a unique agency—Sustainability North West—to co-ordinate environment and sustainability initiatives across the region, including innovative work on climate change. We have a long history of working on information society issues. The GEMISIS project, based at Salford university, acts as the host to similar initiatives in the region that aim to improve the capability of small and medium-sized enterprises through the information super-highway. Leading work has also been done on the year 2000 issue.
The potential for growth and prosperity in the north-west is undeniable. The region's economy is larger than those of four European Union member states, and it generates a gross domestic product of more than £67 billion, accounting for 15 per cent. of the United Kingdom's manufacturing output. Eight of the Financial Times top 100 companies have a presence in the region.
The region also has pressing needs, however. We are ranked seventh of 11 in regional GDP per head, and the index of local deprivation identifies 15 of the 55 most deprived local authority areas in the country as being in the north-west, including two of the top three.
What are the region's next steps? I have always strongly advocated full regional government, and I see regional development agencies as a first step towards that goal. When guidance was issued recently on the roles and responsibilities of new RDAs, I was disappointed that there was no formal or proposed statutory role for regional chambers. Moreover, the Government's regional economic, social and environmental agenda can be successfully addressed only by a more formal partnership between bodies such as the North-West regional chamber, the RDA and the Government office of the north-west.
If we are to further an integrated approach to many of the region's pressing needs, we need clarity about how both strategic and day-to-day operation functions will be discharged by the RDA, particularly as regards key regional players, such as the regional chamber. I should appreciate clarification from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on whether designated regional partners have the ability to make their own formal agreements to deliver Government targets and objectives.
In response to the covering paper that accompanies the draft guidance, I suggest the following qualitative and quantitative performance indicators for the regional development agencies: job creation targets for long-term and/or permanent-contract jobs; job-related terms and contract conditions targets; and sector and skill-specific job-related targets. In addition to existing measures on competitiveness, regional GDP must also be assessed in terms of north-west business growth sectors and the expansion of inward investment-connected supply chain links. The regional baseline against which such indicators could be assessed is a further issue requiring clarification and agreement. We should be fully involved in determining a baseline position for the north-west region.
I turn now to the regional development agency and the improvement of economic performance. The direction of draft guidance is towards integration and a framework for delivery of Government programmes. Given the absence of executive responsibility for delivery, the institutional map of local economic development will become complicated over such issues as the single regeneration budget, the role of training and enterprise councils and business links. A regional review of who does what should be incorporated in the aforementioned agreement to ensure that there is no danger of overlapping competencies and unprofitable competition for resources. That should be associated with an honest assessment of capability and the championing by the RDA and the regional chamber of centres or providers of excellence.
In the north-west, skills and reskilling needs are being tackled in a strategic human resource development context, and it is very much my view that the guidance

should take that approach. Strong links are required with the national action employment plan and with European guidelines under the employment chapter.
The draft guidance emphasises the need for close collaboration between work on the RDAs' strategies and work on the broader based regional planning strategy set out in regional planning guidance. The role of the regional planning body as a key regional player for the RDA is highlighted, and the regional chamber will effectively fulfil that function in the north-west. The timing of work on the two strategies will be significant, and I propose that guidance should acknowledge the status of the chamber's advice on regional planning guidance—as should any final document—given that it will be subject to non-statutory examination.
Let me offer some thoughts on the RDA, regional partnerships, cross-regional working and Europe. I expect published guidance to acknowledge that the overarching partnership for regional development agencies is that with the respective regional chamber or assembly. Experience tells us that the logical conclusions for that area of the guidance should be that closer links should be forged with members of the Committee of the Regions, and that the regional focus of future Members of the European Parliament should be acknowledged and developed.
I seek confirmation from the DETR that our well-developed partnership approach and the route to EU structural funds should be consequent on strategies and bids prepared by the chamber, its stakeholders and its member bodies, following the consultation on the regional economic strategy with the RDA that I mentioned earlier. That said, it should be made clear that while the RDA will have a role in resource allocation, it will also work closely with local authority partners to identify priorities and to implement local strategies. Throughout the guidance, reference to regional partnerships should give more prominence to the building of social partnerships, and that should refer explicitly to relevant economic, social and ethnic groups.
Sustainable development and social inclusion have a lower profile than was anticipated in the White Paper "Building Partnerships for Prosperity", which placed both at the heart of Government programmes. Those two initiatives are not optional, but fundamental to the progress of the north-west.
In conclusion, I shall refer briefly to two other important issues—housing and transport. In November, I hosted the launch of the Greater Manchester and Merseyside housing manifesto at the House of Commons. The manifesto rightly acknowledges that the availability of housing of the right quality in a good environment is one factor that inward investors take into account in considering a region as a location for their business. It recognises the need for co-ordination and co-operation between the public and private sectors to develop housing strategies, and to link them to corporate strategies and plans for urban regeneration. I am pleased that the Minister for Local Government and Housing has agreed to meet authorities in the north-west to discuss the manifesto.
On transport, the chairman of the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive, councillor Joe Clarke, has said:
Public transport is an indispensable element of a vibrant economy.


I agree. I praise the Greater Manchester transport integration project, the largest quality partnership in the country, which has brought together the Greater Manchester PTE, 10 local authorities, local transport operators, Manchester airport and the Highways Agency. In my own constituency of Eccles, metrolink is being extended with enormous economic and environmental benefits, and with an anticipated 10,000 jobs when the full network is on stream.
The Government's proposals for an integrated transport system are crucial to regeneration in the north-west. If the region's publicly owned airports are to play their part in the regeneration process, they need to be freed from legal constraints that prevent them from working in full partnership with other transport operators.
I feel sure that the Minister will not mind if, in Salford parlance, I indulge in just a little more mithering. We all want to see the upgrading of the west coast main line, and the upgrading of the gauge between Glasgow and the channel tunnel should be a priority. That would assist the transfer from road to rail, which I fully endorse, and it would ensure the full co-ordination of the upgrade with engineering work needed to allow faster tilting trains to operate on the west coast main line. I know that the north-west regional chamber is anxious to achieve early progress on the issue.
All in all, the future of the north-west can be positive, but we shall need national and European assistance to sustain our progress and to reach our full and exciting potential.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: There are four reasons why the House should not adjourn. The first subject that requires debating is the channel tunnel rail link. Railtrack is really British Rail in modern clothes and the truth is that British Rail personnel always wanted Waterloo—their glossy station—to be the terminus of the channel tunnel rail link. To my anxiety, they are close to ensuring that the only part of the channel tunnel rail link that appears likely to be built is the one that will do exactly what they want—finish in Waterloo.
In fact, the line between Waterloo and Fawkham junction cannot be turned into a high-speed line, so we face the glamorous probability that our high-speed rail link will run from Brussels or Paris to Fawkham Junction—a destination whose name has all the resonance of a wet blanket. It is worrying that Railtrack has actually admitted that, under current plans and despite the upgrading of Fawkham Junction, it is highly unlikely that there will be any train paths to enable passengers on the channel tunnel rail link phase 1 to go through Fawkham Junction during commuter periods. The Government say that that is perfectly all right, because phase 2 will undoubtedly be built. However, I very much doubt that: there is no assurance that Railtrack, which has guaranteed to buy phase 1, will ever buy phase 2.
It is worth considering why Railtrack should have bid for phase 1. If no bank in the City would touch it, how was it that, on the day that Railtrack announced that it would buy phase 1 of a clearly unprofitable line, shares in the company rose? The answer is, first, that Railtrack wanted one part of its activities not to be subject to the

Rail Regulator, so it bought into the channel tunnel rail link. The company was perfectly open about that; its representatives told a meeting that I chaired that that was the company's principle objective.
Perhaps more revealing is the fact that, on the day that the Secretary of State turned the first sod in the building of the channel tunnel rail link, the chief executive of Railtrack was heard on the "Today" programme to say, "Of course, our bidding for the second part of the channel tunnel rail link will depend on whether the Rail Regulator leaves us with enough profit to be able to buy it." In other words, Railtrack has taken a clear decision to attempt to blackmail the Rail Regulator into allowing the company to levy access charges on the private train operators at a level that will enable it to secure a profitability capable of enabling it to buy phase 2 of the channel tunnel rail link.
That has never been admitted by the Government, but it is clearly Railtrack's strategy and the reason why its shares went up. It is disgraceful, because if, through access charges, Railtrack exerts enough squeeze on the private railway companies to force those companies to cut back services, the Secretary of State will be able to come to the House and say, "There you are—we always told you that private railway lines don't work." In fact, it will have had nothing to do with private railways, and everything to do with Railtrack, in connivance with the Government, having been excused from proper regulation of its charges.
There is a shadow hanging over Railtrack. I understand that the provisional report of the Rail Regulator suggests that Railtrack's profits are too high—the company is said to be overcharging train operators already. If that is so, the Government might decide that that is an improper way in which to deal with Railtrack's charging and start to regulate it. If they do that, Railtrack will turn around and say that it will not bid for phase 2 of the channel tunnel rail link.
If that happens, my county of Kent will have been ploughed up for a line that does Kent no good at all. The development strategy of Kent and the Thames corridor depends on phase 2 going through Ebbsfleet, around to St. Pancras and linking the north-west to the channel tunnel. Without phase 2, the entire expense of phase 1—theoretically £1.7 billion, but I suspect that it will have risen to £2.5 billion by the time that construction is completed—will have been wasted, but the effort will have destroyed my county. I have asked the Public Accounts Committee to look into the case and I am glad to say that it has agreed to do so. The Committee does not often get the chance to investigate the waste of Government money before it happens, but on this occasion it has a chance to intervene.
There is no prospect of the channel tunnel rail link making a profit, even if it were to be completed within the next 10 to 20 years. The annual loss on Eurostar, which is currently the only source of revenue of London and Continental Railways, is £150 million. The company is proud of the fact that it believes that, this year, that loss will be reduced to £90 million. At Railtrack's extraordinary general meeting, it was forced to reveal that it was looking for an even higher rate of return than the 8 per cent. the Government have guaranteed. I believe that a deal has been done—one that our open Government have not put into the public domain—to ensure a considerably higher guaranteed return for Railtrack.
As I told the National Audit Office, the best estimate is that phase 1 of the channel tunnel rail link will entail a subsidy of £40 per passenger journey; and that, if phase 2 were to be built, that figure would rise to £60 per passenger journey. I did not want the line to use the tracks it is to use, nor to be designed as it has been, but I now want it to be built, because it is our future. However, we are proposing to throw £1.7 billion or £2.5 billion down the drain; think of the number of alternative transport routes and improvements that that money could have bought.
The second reason why the House should not adjourn is that it is time we took a quick look at the fruit industry in Kent. Hon. Members smile, but they should bear in mind that it is a big industry and an import-saving industry at that. It is difficult to make accurate calculations, but we think that as many as 30,000 full-time equivalent jobs are operated by the fruit industry in Kent alone. There are several fruit farmers in Kent whose annual wage bill exceeds £1 million. We are talking about not some tinpot little local industry, but one of Britain's major industries. I might add that it is one part of the agricultural sector that does not receive one penny in subsidy.
The industry is under threat from several sources, but I shall mention only three. The first is supermarket bullying. It is time that the supermarkets of this country were called properly to account. Let me give two examples. The other day, a local fruit farmer who is one of my constituents received a letter from one of the big supermarket chains—

Mr. Alan Clark: Name it.

Mr. Rowe: All right: Marks and Spencer. The letter asked for a donation to charitable funds of £3,000. However, when that donation is made, it goes in not as a contribution from the fruit fanner, but as one from Marks and Spencer. If that is not an abuse of market power, what is?
Another supermarket—I will not name it as I believe that the farmer concerned is taking the wrong approach—told one of my constituents that it had rejected a load of strawberries. The next day, the farmer went to the supermarket and asked to have his strawberries returned. He was told that it was difficult to know exactly what had happened to them. So he walked around the supermarket and found his strawberries upon the shelves.

Mr. Clark: That is criminal.

Mr. Rowe: I think that my constituent should prosecute the supermarket, but he does not want to risk damaging his capacity to supply supermarkets with strawberries in future. If that is not an abuse of market power, what is?
The Government have a direct opportunity to intervene and address another difficulty in this area. A major, although not the biggest, problem facing the fruit industry is that it cannot find pickers. Sadly, the only reliable pickers that may be easily employed are foreign students. They work extremely hard as they want to make money and take it home. However, only a very small quota of such workers is allowed and we would like it to be enlarged. The opposing argument is that those workers are taking jobs away from British pickers. However,

we cannot get British pickers, partly because complex and hostile social security arrangements make them difficult to employ.
For example, it takes anything up to six weeks for pickers to re-enter the social security system. If it rains for a fortnight, pickers will have no income. Most of them have no savings, so they will be in serious trouble. When the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was Minister for Welfare Reform—before he was sacked—I took him to visit a fruit farm. He understood the difficulties facing workers and the industry, and I hope that current Ministers are examining that serious issue.
There is also a problem with the national minimum wage. Pickers are paid for piecework. If they choose to spend half an hour or an hour chatting to their friends or picnicking on the edge of a field on a lovely hot day, they might not pick enough fruit to ensure that the piecework rate comfortably exceeds the minimum wage. Farmers are worried that they will be compelled to pay the minimum wage to workers who have been in the fields for a number of hours but not yielded any product. I hope that the Government will consider that issue.
The social security arrangements for part-time work are terribly important on a much wider scale. A recent survey showed that 24 per cent. of workers in the Dover area now work part time. I have always argued for a minimum income and, with the introduction of the national minimum wage, that is now a possibility. However, unless we can encourage people to take part-time work, we will never persuade them into a habit of work in this fluid labour market.
The third issue is the price of diesel. That sounds humorous, but it is a serious matter. The price of diesel is so much cheaper in France than in Britain that it pays hauliers from my county to take their lorries across the channel, fill their tanks and run for a week on cheap French diesel. More importantly, with the removal of cabotage, French and Belgian truckers can operate at much cheaper rates and take work from Kentish and other truckers in the south of Britain. They will gradually push the local truckers out of business.
The noble Lord Whiny sent me not one but two absurd replies on that subject. He said that the Government keep increasing diesel charges in Britain because they want to reduce pollution. He has never explained how it helps to reduce pollution by substituting French for British lorries—I would love to know how that works.
My final point concerns the future of Kent and Canterbury hospital. We are still awaiting the Secretary of State's judgment on the matter, and many of us are comforted by the fact that he is taking so long to make up his mind. The hospital's work load has increased since the review reached the Secretary of State. It has been shown to be the third most cost-effective hospital in the United Kingdom and several of its teams have been singled out as excellent. Opinion in my town of Faversham is unanimously against downgrading the hospital, and I hope that the Secretary of State will find in its favour soon.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his elevation to the Front Bench. In my brief contribution, I shall concentrate


on how English Heritage allocates its conservation area funding. In particular, I shall highlight how Harrow on the Hill—a key historic part of my constituency, with eight conservation areas in a relatively small geographical area—has been unable to access English Heritage funding for environmental improvements and tackling traffic management problems.
In essence, the problem lies in English Heritage's insistence that a large component of its conservation area grants must be directed towards building repair work. I state at the outset that I think English Heritage does an excellent job. Its annual report details 409 properties and sites under its control, which received more than 11.5 million visitors this year. English Heritage membership is at an all-time high of 384,000 and it has managed to achieve a 60 per cent. increase in its non-government income in the past few years. I am pleased that, since the general election, English Heritage has reorganised its service on a regional basis in order to ensure that its work has a much more local public face, which enables it to be a key partner in regeneration activity.
Nevertheless, I think that further changes to at least part of English Heritage's funding streams will be necessary if my constituents are to be truly able to enjoy the beauty and the history of Harrow on the Hill. History there is aplenty. The hill can claim to be the only remaining former pagan site of worship in London. Records dating as far back as the seventh century refer to Harrow on the Hill, and it is featured in the Domesday book. For more than 1,000 years, Harrow on the Hill was the centre of Harrow. Only the onset of the railway precipitated a gradual shift in Harrow's economic life from the hill to its present location in the Harrow-Wealdstone corridor.
The hill retains many of its key historical features. Beautiful St. Mary's church, which was founded in 1078, has key links with the Archbishop of Canterbury and was visited by Thomas a Becket a few days before his murder. Lord Byron is reputed to have composed some of his early poetry while lying on a tomb in St. Mary's churchyard. The Kings Head complex, which is currently in desperate need of restoration to its former incarnation as a hotel, dates back to 1535 and was used as a hunting lodge by Henry VIII. Seven Prime Ministers have attended the famous Harrow school at the top of the hill, as did the great pacifist, G. M. Trevelyan, who became a Labour Member of Parliament and served in the first Labour Cabinet in 1924. Roxeth school, which is now an excellent state first and middle school, was established in 1850 thanks to the generosity of the then Lord Shaftesbury.
In the past 10 years, it has become clear that Harrow on the Hill is experiencing several significant interconnected problems. I shall give two examples. First, changes in shopping patterns, including the development of large supermarkets off the hill, have led to the closure of most local retail outlets at the top of the hill. Secondly, the increasing impact and volume of traffic—particularly the speed of vehicles moving across the top of the hill—have caused significant problems. I hope that the Government office for London will quickly endorse the view of Harrow council, which is now run by an excellent new

Labour administration, that the main road over the hill should be downgraded so that traffic management schemes can be implemented.
Those interconnected problems have led to an overall decline in the environmental quality of the hill area. In 1995, in recognition of those problems, the council secured the support of English Heritage to undertake an environmental study of the area to analyse its problems and suggest solutions. Harrow council introduced a series of key policy commitments and initiatives. A key part of that was the establishment of the Harrow on the Hill forum, which is a partnership between the business interests that remain on the hill, the school, Harrow council and local residents' associations, including the excellent Harrow Hill trust.
The forum has drawn up a strategy for the hill's future, a key part of which has been to secure funding for much-needed environmental improvement works appropriate to the area's character. In my previous role—it seems almost like a previous life—as a councillor in Harrow, I served on the Harrow on the Hill forum. The vision that we developed, which still holds, was of a regenerated core area around a refurbished, modern Kings Head hotel, appealing to a niche market of tourist-based businesses such as those dealing in arts, crafts and antiques. That would reflect the businesses left on the hill and be in keeping with areas similar to Harrow on the Hill.
Crucial to the implementation of that vision was funding to improve public access to and enjoyment of the hill area. With that in mind, in 1997 a bid was made to the heritage lottery fund's townscape scheme. Unfortunately, it was rejected due to a lack of focus on building repair schemes. Building repair is not the key issue in Harrow on the Hill, thanks to the high commitment of local residents and owners to the maintenance of their properties.
At the same time, English Heritage had a similar funding scheme—a conservation area partnership scheme—but that, too, required a great deal of building repair to be necessary before funding approval would be considered. The final round of that scheme, in the form of a partnership between English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund, has recently been announced, together with the heritage lottery fund's new townscape heritage initiative. Again, the funding available under those schemes is aimed primarily at building repair, with too little focus on environmental improvement of the public realm and the space around buildings.
Grants for building repair are clearly important, but it is important also for funders to recognise that, in many areas, the key is not building repair but the environment between buildings and the impact of traffic on those areas. The failure to invest in environmental improvements in public areas can have, and indeed has had, a detrimental effect on the perceived commitment to an area. In the case of Harrow on the Hill, that has been demonstrated by a lack of investment by businesses and other bodies and hence a lack of economic viability and vitality. The repair and improvement of the actual street scene is crucial if we are to preserve the area's special character and interest and then build up its economic viability and vitality.
There is strong public support for the environmental works envisaged by the council. We know that from the many responses to the public consultation, which was part of the original English Heritage-funded study, and from


the partnership support generated by the Harrow on the Hill forum for the failed heritage lottery fund bid. Those environmental improvements could be achieved for sums that are relatively modest in comparison with those needed for building repair schemes.
I welcome the new initiative to improve green spaces and create sustainable communities outlined in the consultation paper, "New Links for the Lottery", which was recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That will be funded through the new opportunities fund, which is a key reform of the lottery that the Government have introduced. That may go some way to fill the gap in non-building repair-based conservation area funding. English Heritage is currently reviewing its role and the way in which it allocates conservation area funding, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that it takes on board the points that I have made so that we can protect and enhance the Harrow on the Hills of our nation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister to his Front-Bench position. In the light of a briefing from, and discussion with, the Disability Benefits Consortium yesterday, I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who represents Sherwood, will guide the Government and, like Robin Hood, take from the rich, not the poor. The figures given by the consortium suggested that, although it has been claimed that more and more money is being given to disabled people, much of that money has been taken from them. We should like an assurance that it will be given back in the form of investment in the development of services for those with disabilities.
I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) because he dealt specifically with constituency issues. He presented his case very well. When the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) was speaking about his position on regional government, I smiled wryly because I thought of how the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), chided the previous Government because they were slow to give devolution. He said that we should not be worried about that because we gave Germany devolution. However, we gave Germany not devolution but federalism.
Having propounded federalism 20 years ago, I regret that we are only now beginning to think it through and are engaged in devolution of power without knowing what is our aim. At the time, I suggested that we should not spend so much money on developing new buildings around London because we should be developing regional assemblies and diversifying power to the communities, and should have a central Administration—a federal Government—dealing with the bigger issues.
As we have moved, rightly, towards regional devolution, I want to raise issues, particularly health issues, that affect the emerging Administration in Northern Ireland. In the past 18 months, we have grown used in this place to yah-boo politics, whereby each side blames faults on the other. The new Northern Ireland Administration will not have the luxury of being able to blame any faults on people who have administered Northern Ireland for more than 20 years. They must therefore tackle the issues.
About a week ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who is responsible for health issues, was reported in the media as saying that Northern Ireland had to make progress because its health problems and hospital provision were far worse than any other area in the United Kingdom. I am not sure that he was right, and he has subsequently been praising the health service in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the moves to improve the ambulance service in Northern Ireland, which are long overdue. There is still a long way to go, particularly if we are determined to go ahead with the golden six hospitals, because that means that, in many areas of Northern Ireland, there will be difficulties in transporting patients speedily to hospital. Circumstances are changing and if, as we hope, they become more peaceful, the health service will not have the provision of, for example, the helicopter service of the Army Air Corps. A helicopter ambulance may be required to serve the Province in emergencies to transport people faster to regional provision in Belfast.
At the same time, I hope that those serving in the ambulance service will not repeat some of the follies that were committed in England during modernisation and the introduction of computer technology in an attempt to direct ambulances speedily to where they were to pick up a patient. At first, it was thought that there were spies in the cab when in fact they were meant to be aids. Technology is vital if we are to progress.
I recently read the minutes of the Eastern health and social services board. They were challenging. I know that, since those minutes were taken, more money has been promised to the service, but one of the concerns that they raised, which was revealed again last week in a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, is that some figures show front loading. In other words, there seems to be more money up front for the next two years and then a decline in the third.
It is 50 years since the establishment of the national health service. Although we have a fine health service, we do not seem able to reach the point where all diseases are treated. The harsh reality is that modern developments in the health service mean that we have given longevity to many people, which means an increase in the number to be treated, but, in addition, new strains of viruses are coming into the country.
My plea is that Northern Ireland should be brought into line with the rest of the kingdom where, for years, there has been core funding for the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association. The Minister has said that he will examine the matter, but a disease that is having such an impact on our society should at least have some core funding in Northern Ireland as well.
The health board's minutes also show problems with residential provision, especially for people with learning difficulties. Commitments were given to parents and guardians of people at Muckamore Abbey hospital that those people would not be moved without their consent. I understand the need for change. I recommended community care, but I accept that that system needs a great deal of improvement. However, commitments should be honoured if we are not to lose the trust of our people.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned the care of children. As many of the statutory homes have been closed, we no longer have the necessary provision,


which means that there is pressure on social services to provide emergency accommodation for young people in urgent need of care and protection. I urge the Department to examine that again.
As for waiting lists, we have been promised the moon time and again. One problem that the House and the Department have not faced up to is that the greater success we have in ministering to people surgically and medically, the more come forward. In times of financial stringency, we have to accept the harsh fact that the first few days after any operation are the most costly, so a greater through-put of patients means greater pressure on the health service. I do not believe that the Department, or the Treasury in particular, has yet recognised that.
Waiting lists continue. According to recent reports, in 1997–98 fewer patients were seen within the accepted time scale. Of course, there seems to be discrepancies between hospitals in the quality of service that they offer. I should like that to be highlighted so that we can solve the difficulties.
One of the difficulties that I have is reading the tables, which do not compare like with like. For example, the recent figures show the breast cancer mortality ratio aggregated over the years 1994 to 1996. The tables also show breast screening figures for 1995, 1996 and 1997. Would it not be possible to compare like with like so that we know what is really happening? I welcome the fact that the Northern health and social services board has the best figures, while the Southern board apparently has the worst. Interestingly, the Eastern board is second in terms of mortality rates, yet, over the previous three years, had the lowest screening rate at 69 per cent. That leads one to ask to what extent screening helps.
Talking about children took me back to the problems of security and its impact on hospital care. That issue was highlighted when Omagh hospital came to prominence as a result of the tragic bombing in that town. People are demanding that that event means that the hospital should stay. Those responsible for the review will have to take into consideration the need for provision, but the people who have supplied the finances in Northern Ireland have not properly understood the impact on ordinary care and elective surgery of the emergencies created by terror.
Vincent McKenna is a constituent of mine. I doubt that he will ever vote for me, as we come from entirely different backgrounds, but he has done meticulous work in highlighting what has been happening even in the past eight months of peace. During that period, some 1,000 children in the Province have been affected by terror. Some have been brutally murdered, some have been traumatised by seeing their families and other relatives shot before their eyes, some have been injured, some have been sexually abused, and many have been expelled from the Province with their parents by terrorist organisations. The authorities—I especially indict the Northern Ireland Office—constantly hide behind the claim that they are acting on the best security advice, but men like McKenna, who was himself brutally beaten by those he knew to be members of the Provisional IRA, are discounted because the mythology is that we are keeping the peace. We have to wise up.
It is interesting that, the last time an attempt was made to change the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a Labour Administration were in power. It is also interesting that,

as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) can confirm, one of the folk involved at that time was Sir Arthur Young, who came from the Metropolitan constabulary. If my memory serves me correctly, we now have on the Patten commission a former deputy commissioner of the Met. One can understand a certain cynicism in Northern Ireland about that. There is a serious charge of corruption against the Met, but a former deputy commissioner from the Met is now seeking to reform the RUC. Charity begins at home—

Mr. William Ross: And reform, too.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Indeed; reform begins at home, too.
I have received communications from various people about the provision of sweaters for the Northern Ireland police service. I asked how many were ordered for the RUC, and when, and received a rather interesting reply:
No sweaters marked NI Police Service have been procured for issue to the Royal Ulster Constabulary."—[Official Report, 19 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 740.]
The reference to the Northern Ireland police service and the RUC in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 seems to concern ancillary bodies, office personnel, and so on. I doubt whether receptionists will be wearing sweaters marked "Northern Ireland Police Service". Have we been spending money wisely, or are we repeating the folly of the past, when we insulted a proud force of men and women who served their country faithfully? Admittedly, there are those who have overstepped the mark due to pressure, but I am not defending them. I am speaking of the force collectively. Are we to insult them as we did with the previous attempted reform, when tailored uniforms were designated for change and second-hand blue uniforms were sent from England? The House should consider more the needs of the people of Northern Ireland and those who serve them—not the terrorists who plague them—before we adjourn for Christmas.
There is a concerted campaign, headed by Sinn Fein, to discredit the RUC. In an attempt to help people in Belfast at this busy time of year, when people are Christmas shopping and there is much ancillary pilfering, the RUC has opened a cop shop in the middle of a shopping area. Did Sinn Fein welcome it? No. That may be due to a guilt complex; we recall that it murdered people in the area when that shopping complex was built. Sinn Fein's protest at the open door through which people can go to meet the police in the service of the community impeded people's shopping.

Mr. Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Patten commission has turned into about the most divisive device in the police force and in Northern Ireland politics for a good many months? I would not say for longer, because there are always divisive influences. Is it not evident from remarkably large attendances at meetings in every part of the Province that there is immense resentment among the law-abiding community—the 80 per cent. of those who support the police in Northern Ireland—at any interference with the force's ethos?

Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I am aware of the concerted attempts from different


angles to discredit the force, although the bulk of people stand by it. One recognises that the vocal minority does not represent the 80 per cent. of people who certainly support the police service.
It is naive to allege, despite the Patten commission's denial, that a document has not already been prepared. Anyone who has been in this place for years knows that people are beavering away writing papers which will ultimately be put before the chairman for his consideration and marks. Vehement protests that such things do not happen devalue the system.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I congratulate hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his well-deserved appointment as Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. It gives hope to us all. I have always considered him an element of the awkward squad—not that his awkwardness is deliberate. He is often diplomatic, and it is good to see that someone does not have to tow the line all the time in order to be promoted under new Labour. In saying that, I hope that I have not damaged his career on the Front Bench.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), as I did in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I would dearly like to pursue many of his points, but I shall content myself with a few short comments because I want to spend time on a constituency matter. I should point out, however, as I did when I followed the hon. Gentleman's previous speech, that a report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the Royal Ulster Constabulary certainly does not downgrade the organisation. Such a document should be given serious consideration in the current review.
I was pleased with the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South on intimidation, terror and exile in Northern Ireland. I have stated that, in association with Families Against Intimidation and Terror, I am willing to table a series of early-day motions on incident after incident, as they have occurred, so that the House is alerted to what is happening in Northern Ireland despite the ceasefire and the pursuance of a peace process. Often, a terrorist organisation seriously attacks its own community to bring it into line.
I wish to raise the matter of Avenue cokeworks in Wingerworth in my constituency. Unfortunately, I have to keep finding opportunities to raise matters of contamination and pollution in north-east Derbyshire. The following issue is another key incident that must be raised before we adjourn for Christmas because developments may occur very early in the new year.
The Avenue cokeworks plant was closed almost six years ago, with the loss of 313 jobs in Coal Products Ltd., save for one or two people who found work elsewhere in the company. The plant stands derelict on highly contaminated land. If one puts a stick in the River Rother, which runs by the plant, tar and oil bubble up. The plant is clearly an eyesore, which must be tackled.
For five years before the plant's closure, when I was a Member of the House, it was a source of serious pollution. Oven doors fitted badly, for instance, and I received numerous complaints about the plant's operation. I pressed a host of authorities for improvement. In fact, I pressed the right hon. Member for Penrith and

The Border (Mr. Maclean), who was then the Minister responsible for the environment and the countryside, for assistance in modernisation in an attempt not only to save jobs, but to ensure decent production standards. At that time, the previous Government were getting around to setting up an independent environment agency, and there was hope that it would be strong and provide an opportunity for such a problem to be tackled. Nevertheless, the plant was closed because of low-quality output and a decline in the market for coal products.
A proposal to opencast the site and some of the surrounding area and to move the contaminated land into a waste cell made available by opencasting eventually emerged, and was put to Derbyshire county council for planning permission. There was opposition to the proposal from North East Derbyshire district council, parish councils, residents, environmental groups, which are very strong in the area, and me. I submitted my formal opposition in July 1995, even though the applicant, Fitzwise, is based in my constituency. The firm now operates as Tawnywood Ltd and Tawnywood (Avenue) Ltd in connection with the project.
Unfortunately, Derbyshire county council accepted the application. The issue is probably the biggest dispute that I have had with the council. The matter of Derbyshire county council was raised by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). On the subject of the council's grant and problems of capping, I have always been a solid advocate on the council's behalf, so in the present matter it was not a case of the council scratching my back because I had scratched its back, as it rejected the line that I had taken.
Let us consider the arguments that are still pressed vigorously against the Fitzwise-Tawnywood plan. Opencasting will harm the neighbouring communities of Grassmoor and Wingerworth. Grassmoor directly overlooks the plant and will overlook the opencasting activities. Those communities and surrounding areas will be seriously disrupted as coal is moved by road, although a main railway line runs through the centre of the site. It would be easy to use rail facilities to move the coal, but that is not part of the proposal. Few communal benefits will come from the development, apart from the cleaning up of the site, which needs to be done in any case, and the addition of a road and some trees.
More serious than the problem of opencasting is the problem of contaminated land. There is grave concern that methods employed to move contaminated land to the waste cell will involve considerable health risks for the community. The Avenue site is acknowledged by its current owners, English Partnerships, to be the most contaminated in its portfolio of 50 sites throughout the country, with the exception of the Greenwich millennium site.
There are high levels of benzene at the Avenue site. I shall quote from a report produced by John Gower, whose views I respect greatly, on behalf of Communities Opposed to Environmental Pollution. He states:
there are a minimum of 23 types of carcinogenic chemicals on this site and their cumulative effect on health pose a major risk both to communities around the site and the work force who are to undertake the reclamation scheme.
He continues:
The levels of volatile organic compounds…pose a most serious threat to health if disturbed, with levels reaching 41 times the safety thresholds in soil and 51 times in water. At locations on this site,


levels of benzene have been found at 240 ppm. Benzene can cause leukaemia and chronic blood disorders, and levels at less than 1 ppm are known to cause serious health effects.
Mr. Gower goes on to outline the problems associated with dioxins and PCBs—polychlorinated biphenyls—and later states:
Other nasty chemicals including arsenic, cyanide, phenols, cadmium and nickel are known to cause asthma, respiratory illness, cancers and birth abnormalities and levels of very small particulates smaller than PM 2.5 enter the bloodstream through inhalation and cause heart disease and cancers.
Indeed, there is considerable evidence of the existence of a cancer cluster in the Wingerworth area from the time that the plant was in operation. I am dealing with the case of a local worker who died at the age of 37. It is the most serious case among the massive cancer problems that have occurred in the area. His wife believes, and the evidence suggests, that his work at the plant was the source of the cancer. The situation is similar to that reported in 1997 by the director of public health in Wales with reference to a plant in the Cynon valley. That was a valuable report, with implications for the situation in Derbyshire.
Can the Fitzwise-Tawnywood plan still be replaced? Even if the plan was abandoned, English Partnerships, which owns the site, has a statutory responsibility to clean it up, possibly by using bio-remedial techniques rather than opencasting. Even though Fitzwise has planning permission, various conditions must still be fulfilled. Is Fitzwise-Tawnywood financially viable, with safe insurance to cover its operations? Fitzwise was a subsidiary of NSM Mining, which went into liquidation in 1998.
If pumping stops at the former Williamthorpe colliery, that will cause problems in the water table in the area. It is suggested by Tawnywood that an adjustment is required to the planning permission to allow the use of landfill and sub-surface deposits to prevent contamination of the ground water. I am pressing Derbyshire county council to treat this as a new application, so that planning assessments must start from scratch and the situation can be re-examined in the light of new developments. Manpower planning guidance note 3, drafted by the appropriate Ministry, toughens up the conditions for opencasting. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood will keep the relevant Minister informed of my views.
A remedial method statement prepared for English Partnerships by Scott Wilson Fitzpatrick in February 1998 has recently been agreed to by the statutory regulators, although many of us are unhappy about elements of it. Likewise, discharge consents for opencast working have been issued by the Environment Agency. Derbyshire county council has accepted a submission from the Environment Agency of intent to issue the waste management licence, so work could begin soon. However, there has not yet been an application for tar treatment on the site, as required.
The Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the health authorities and the planning authorities have agreed to demolish the chimneys by remote detonation. Given the known presence of dioxins in the chimneys, many of us are worried that the work will go ahead quickly, whereas considerable safety action is needed first to protect the community and the work force. There is also great concern about the asbestos remaining in the ovens when that dismantling takes place. Safety plans for the demolition work are vital.
Attempts have been made by Tawnywood to bounce the authorities into accepting an early start to work on the site. A great deal of money is involved. A working programme starting on 4 January is being circulated. I am keen to block that, especially as the original planning application states that no soil handling can take place between October and April because of the weather, unless such work is approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. I hope that the authority will not be persuaded that work can begin as early as 4 January.
I have played another card by asking the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning to call in the planning agreement and examine it because of the new developments under the draft MPG 3. If that had been in place when Derbyshire county council considered the original application, the council would have been obliged to refuse it. I have used the same card before with the previous Government, but I hope that this time, unlike the previous occasion, I will get a sympathetic response, especially in the light of MPG 3.
Everything has been done that could have been done in an attempt to resolve the situation in respect of the site. I first met English Partnerships on these matters in January 1997, and have since regularly chaired an English Partnerships liaison group concerning Avenue cokeworks, made up of what might be described as the two sides in the argument. On one side are English Partnerships and Scott Wilson Fitzpatrick, which obviously are keen to have things developed and for the work to be done according to the plans that they want. On the other are councillors, environmental groups, myself and other interests, which think that the matter should be dealt with differently.
The secretary of that group is John Gower, whose work on these matters is invaluable. I want the site cleared as quickly as possible, but only by the safest possible method. That would be best resolved through call-in of the planning application by my hon. Friend the Minister. It would be valuable if he agreed to meet a deputation of the people who have these concerns to pursue the matter further—perhaps before he makes a decision that may go against us—so that we can argue as strongly as we can about the seriousness of the situation.
Unfortunately, Avenue cokeworks is not alone in north-east Derbyshire in presenting problems. In a previous debate, I discussed the situation at SARP Killamarsh, which has considerable problems, and we always have to keep a look out for developments at Staveley Chemicals, which has an emergency plan operating in the area. Opencasting is always a tremendous issue in the constituency and in the district.
Hon. Members would not think that an area with so many such problems because of industrial development would be at the bottom end of the Government's standard spending assessments. That needs to be looked at, but I shall venture down that path on some other occasion.

Mr. Alan Clark: In congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, on his elevation, I also commiserate with him on having landed feet first in a pretty tough, broad-spectrum assignment. We have heard a number of extremely interesting contributions, many of which deserve a full, considered response.
I intend to draw the attention of the House—it will not be difficult—to another case where the Government have not fulfilled their manifesto commitment. In 1996, the year before the election, a paper entitled "New Labour: New Life for Animals" was published. Animals do not have a vote, but there is a lobby—not the activists, but a general aura of sympathy—that disapproves of abuse and of cruelty. That feeling is widespread in the electorate and, if it had not been, the Labour party would not have bothered to compose and publish a paper.
The essential premise of the paper was the promise of support for a royal commission on the justification and effectiveness of experiments on animals. That promise was repeated in the manifesto on which the Labour party was elected. Others have drawn attention to the failure to fulfil that promise, although it is no part of my intention to advocate the devices in which those hyper-enthusiasts—to give them a polite term—have and are indulging in. As hon. Members know, someone in prison at present has been starving himself for many days. That is evidence of the high degree of commitment—the House must accept this—that pervades certain sections of society on the issue.
I do not know whether other hon. Members saw "Dispatches" on television about 10 days ago. It used its standard technique of infiltration and betrayal of the trust that the infiltrator had acquired. There was selected editing, cutting and presenting, and a totally biased image was produced, focusing on individuals who, admittedly, probably would not shrink from breaking the law. The programme, however, did not bother to say that those people are the very tip of an iceberg of a large number of well-intentioned and genuinely concerned individuals.
We were told that the royal commission would be ineffectual because it would be expensive, cumbersome and time consuming. I detect in that—and so will the Minister quite quickly, if he does not think that impertinent—the language of the civil service. It will have put before him reasons for not doing anything. A royal commission probably would be inconvenient, time consuming and troublesome for the Government, but there is also a risk that, if it discharged its duties properly, it would conclude that a large tranche of animal experiments are repetitious, cruel, unnecessary and indifferently supervised in the various and scattered laboratories where they take place, and that an enormous proportion are still being conducted purely for the commercial gain and profits of a large number of powerful corporations—or even multinational corporations—in the private sector.
I hope that the Government will think again. I recognise that that would be difficult for them in the atmosphere that is being created, where the temperature is being raised in some quarters and they find themselves under the kind of pressure that we—who are democratically legitimate in this place—should never either bow to or endorse. None the less, it would be a fine gesture if they admitted that a royal commission is necessary, that there is substantial public demand for that and that they committed themselves to it in their manifesto.
I shall conclude by quoting one of our leading essayists, who wrote recently:
Passionate belief in the rights of animals may seem quirky and extreme".
I have had no diffidence about admitting to being an animal freak throughout my political career, and I made my maiden speech many years ago in support of a Bill

introduced by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In my brief period away from this place, I was behaving as I could not behave once I was again a Member of Parliament—going to animal rights protesters' funerals, going on picket lines and so on.
The essayist continued:
passionate belief in our responsibilities to and for them, whether in laboratories, battery sheds, farrowing stalls, milking parlours, in transit by road and sea, in abattoir, Islamic slaughter-house or farmyard should inform the judgment and behaviour of all men and women who lay claim to reason and compassion.

Mr. John McDonnell: I apologise for my delayed entry into the Chamber. There was gridlock in west London this morning and I was on the school run.
I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), on his appointment. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) caught in him a whiff of the awkward squad. I see less of that and more the sinew of principle. I am sure that he will serve us well in government.
Before we enter the Christmas recess, I want to raise briefly two injustices. First, I draw attention to the plight of my constituents who, for the past three years, have been in dispute with Hillingdon hospital, and who, this year, will be on the picket line for their fourth Christmas. The dispute involves Hillingdon hospital cleaners, which some will recall I raised previously.
More than three years ago, the cleaning service was privatised, and the company that took over the contract was Pall Mall, which immediately introduced a substantial reduction in wages, eradicated certain conditions of service and refused to negotiate. As a result, the cleaners, largely Asian women, were forced to take industrial action. Throughout, Pall Mall refused to negotiate. Now, after three years, the Hillingdon Asian women strikers have won the right to reinstatement and full compensation at an industrial tribunal.
Unfortunately, the new company which took over from Pall Mall, Granada, refused to implement the industrial tribunal's decision. That means, as I have said, that this Christmas the strikers will once again be out in the cold on the picket line. The women have lived off donations, not social security benefits, and limited strike pay for nearly four years.
As a result of that experience, we should consider our industrial relations legislation and the worst offenders. The fairness at work programme that the Government are introducing will overcome many of the problems that we have seen in past industrial disputes—

Mr. Alan Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I have just finished speaking on a completely different subject. Does he agree that a strange anomaly is present in Granada, which is a great supporter of the Labour party, which he represents, yet displays a particular expertise in ripping off the consumer and abusing its work force whenever it suits it?

Mr. McDonnell: I am surprised at the way in which Granada is treating these women. We hoped that, when Granada took over the contract from Pall Mall, it would


see sense, settle the dispute amicably, reinstate the women and provide compensation. A representative from Granada has been appointed to the Government's Low Pay Commission. For that reason, we hoped that the dispute would be resolved amicably, but that has not happened.
It is with extreme disappointment that we now find that Granada is seeking to challenge the industrial tribunal's decision and to overturn, not necessarily the compensation order, but the reinstatement order. It is on the principle of reinstatement that the women have stood for three and a half long years.
As we debate the new legislation, we need to ensure that we design it so that it tackles the worst employers, rather than just ensuring that we have standards for the average employer to abide by. We must consider the hard cases.
The second injustice which I want briefly to mention has already been referred to the House on a number of occasions, most recently by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). It relates again to the Inntrepreneur cases. I have in my constituency a Mr. and Mrs. Luke, the landlord and landlady of the Crown public house in the beautiful village of Harmondsworth, one of the last lovely villages around Heathrow. They took over the pub 11 years ago and have run it successfully ever since. Their original lease was with Courage breweries.
Mr. and Mrs. Luke agreed a business plan for the pub on the basis of a five-year lease, plus a five-year continuing lease, with a contract to sell a certain barrelage. During the past 11 years, Mr. and Mrs. Luke have worked hard. They have invested their own money in the pub. They have an excellent new kitchen, serve food, have increased their clientele and have been in the "Good Beer Guide" for the past 10 years. For Mr. and Mrs. Luke, this was their investment for retirement which they plan in the next five or seven years.
Inntrepreneur took over the contracts and leases from Courage breweries and immediately increased the barrelage and renegotiated the contract on an unrealistic level, a process which has occurred in many constituencies. As a result, an impossible demand has been placed on Mr. and Mrs. Luke. The lease and rent prices have been forced upwards, again to an unrealistic level, and the company's response to an attempt to negotiate a reasonable level which could be expected from the pub is, "If you don't like it, walk away and leave the keys."
Mr. and Mrs. Luke now face the loss of their pub, their investment, their retirement nest egg and their home shortly after Christmas. This is a tragic story. There will be no room at the inn for Mr. and Mrs. Luke after Christmas. They will be evicted.
Inntrepreneur is now part of the Nomura bank, which is going further in ensuring that the barrelage rates for other landlords are forced up even higher and the renegotiated terms inflict more damage on individual pubs. In addition, it refuses to renegotiate sensible rates at a sustainable level.
That action stems from earlier legislation which was an attempt to break down the breweries' monopolies under the previous Government. That was well intended, but it

had these unforeseen consequences which have affected many constituencies. Action needs to be taken to review the legislation and to protect constituents such as mine, Mr. and Mrs. Luke, who are about to lose their homes.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I urge that the House should not adjourn until it has had an opportunity to consider the position of the defence medical services, particularly the royal hospital, Haslar, in my constituency.
It is common ground that there are shortages in the defence medical services. It is much under strength in terms of doctors, nurses and other staff. I am convinced that the fortunate circumstances of the Falklands war, where there were fewer casualties than was generally expected—some 250 or so—and certainly the Iraq-Kuwait war, where, mercifully, the number of casualties was small, meant that those who urged that defence medical services should be strengthened and maintained at a good level were defeated by those putting forward Treasury-type arguments, who pointed out that the defence forces might not need the strength of medical services that had previously been needed. I am convinced that that is wrong and that medicine is an essential part of our defence forces.
The study under the previous Government's programme, "Front Line First", was carried out under the heading "Defence Costs Study 15"—the study of defence medical services. That concluded that there should be a single tri-service defence hospital at Haslar. That decision was taken in 1994. It was an integral part of that decision that Haslar should be increased in size to 375 beds and that all the other services should be increased commensurately.
As part of that overall programme, some £35 million has been spent over the past 10 years. Haslar has some exemplary facilities. It has an outstandingly well-equipped burns unit which, because the Government have not carried through the programme to expand Haslar as was originally intended, despite its excellent facilities, has not yet been opened. Only now has an arrangement been reached with the burns unit at Odstock hospital near Salisbury. It is hoped that the burns unit at Haslar will soon be opened.
Haslar has the only hyperbaric unit in the area. It has a helicopter landing facility, which is helpful in cases of air-sea rescue and when casualties need to be moved quickly. Haslar deals with about 110,000 patients a year, of whom 80 per cent. are civilians. When I visited Haslar a month ago, instead of the intended 375 beds under "Defence Costs Study 15", I found only 187 beds were manned. There are severe staff shortages.
The Government's publication this week of a document entitled "Defence Medical Services: a strategy for the future" reveals that the armed forces have only 50 per cent. of the doctors that they need for establishment and only 75 per cent. of the nurses. There are similar shortages across the defence medical services.
So serious is the situation that there is a defence requirement that the Regular Army should be able to have four field hospitals, and that the Territorial Army should be able to have 11 field hospitals. However, in the whole of the Army, there are only four orthopaedic surgeons. It would therefore be impossible, because of a shortage of medical staff, for the armed forces to deploy at proper strength. It is a deeply serious problem.
Proposals to close Haslar are being made at a time when the medical environment has been changing. Fashions in medicine have changed. Five or so years ago, the view was that a district general hospital could be sustained by a hinterland population of about 250,000 people, whereas the latest thinking is that a district general hospital requires a hinterland population of about 500,000. There has also been increasing sub-specialisation within the royal colleges. Decisions on the future have had to be made within that context.
The Government have considered the shortages within the defence medical services. I ask the House to consider the chain of logic that Ministers have followed in dealing with the shortages. First, they spelled out the degree of the shortages and the size of the problem. Subsequently, they concluded that they should close the only tri-service hospital. Surely it does not take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon—it takes someone with O-level common sense—to realise that, when there are already acknowledged shortages, it cannot make sense to close the only hospital.
The Government's strategy is to open two medical district hospital units—one at Northallerton, to take over from Catterick hospital, and another perhaps at Cosham, in Hampshire, which will provide facilities for military specialists within a civilian hospital. The Government's overall strategy is that there should be one centre of medical excellence—which they have yet to define.
It simply cannot make sense to seek a centre for medical excellence when such a centre was already selected and chosen in 1994. Haslar is that centre of medical excellence. The college of military medicine was moved to Haslar to be adjacent to Haslar hospital. The Institute of Naval Medicine is near to Haslar hospital. There is the centre of medical excellence.
I tell the House—from my absolute conviction and from talking to many nurses, doctors and other medical staff at Haslar—that, if the Government press ahead with the insane scheme to close Haslar and to find another hospital to become the centre of medical excellence and cannot make an absolute, firm and long-term commitment to Haslar, Haslar's staff will leave. Doctors, nurses and other medical staff have very transferable skills. In recent months, many staff—scores of them—at Haslar have told me that they simply are not prepared to stay in an environment unless the future of that environment can be confirmed to them.
I really do believe—although initially I thought that the point, when it was put to me, was extreme and over-excited—that the defence medical services will collapse inwards and implode if the future of Haslar hospital cannot be confirmed. We would find ourselves facing a serious crisis in which our armed forces cannot deploy because there is not the medical staff to back them up.
So far, I have spoken entirely on the basis of the national military medicine crisis. However, Haslar hospital is in my constituency, and there are also some civilian aspects of the problem, about which my constituents feel very strongly.
This week, I was given a categorical assurance by a Minister. He said, "If we do close Haslar, I can give you my absolute assurance that medical facilities on the Gosport peninsula will not be diminished in any way."

I shall not name the Minister, because the assurance was such transparent rubbish that it would shame him if I were to name him.
Facilities in the Gosport peninsula will, of course, be closed if Haslar hospital—which is effectively the district general hospital—is closed, and of course medical facilities will be affected. How can anyone expect medical facilities in the Gosport peninsula not to be affected by the closure of a hospital that deals with 110,000 patients a year, 80 per cent. of whom are civilians, and on which doctors in the Gosport area rely greatly? It is absolutely preposterous and total nonsense to suggest that there would not be such an effect.
The immediate leading edge of the damage that would be done to medical facilities in the Gosport peninsula is in accident and emergency cover. Haslar hospital has the only accident and emergency cover in the Gosport peninsula, backed up—as it should be—by intensive care units, anaesthetists and all the other specialists necessary for intensive care.
I should say, to my regret, that particularly the A32 road between Gosport and Fareham, but also the road between Fareham and Cosham, can become blocked, and that traffic on them moves extremely slowly for over two hours every morning and for over two hours every evening. My constituents are deeply concerned that—with a lack of accident and emergency cover in Haslar—they would have to be transported to Cosham hospital, as it would not be possible to create in Gosport a free-standing accident and emergency unit, as such units have to be part of a major hospital. My constituents suffering any accident or emergency would therefore have to sit in heavy traffic. They are deeply concerned that the delay between collection by ambulance and arrival in hospital could have serious consequences, and possibly cause loss of life.
The idea that medical facilities in the Gosport peninsula will not be affected by closure of its major hospital leaves me speechless. I cannot imagine what the Minister had in mind. Was he thinking perhaps of providing a fleet of helicopters?
I believe that Haslar hospital will not close. Many people have asked me what they can do to ensure that it does not close. Certainly, we are doing everything that we can to enable them to demonstrate the strength of their feeling. We are planning a public rally and march on Sunday 24 January, at 12 noon, when I hope that many people will go from Gosport town hall to Haslar hospital to hand in a petition against the closure of Haslar hospital.
I believe that Haslar hospital will stay open, not because of what will undoubtedly be a very widespread demonstration of support for it in the Gosport peninsula, but because the proposed closure will be overtaken by events. Ministers will discover—it will be demonstrated to them—what has been said to me by many constituents and by many doctors and nurses working in Haslar hospital: unless a firm commitment is given on the hospital's future, doctors, nurses and other medical staff will leave. Therefore, within two years Haslar would close and, consequently, the situation within the defence medical services would be catastrophic.
The Government have to do something about the situation. I am convinced that they have to give the assurance that I am demanding—that Haslar be kept open.

Mr. David Amess: Before adjourning for the Christmas recess, there are four points that I wish to raise. However, before doing so I should like to join other hon. Members in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his appointment. He may recall that when he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary, he very generously invited me to a pre-Question Time briefing, thereby demonstrating that he is an inclusive politician. I shall watch his future career with great interest.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) is in the Chamber. His arguments for independence were totally unconvincing. Independence is a little like running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds. Both nationally and locally, it is a bit of a cop out. There is one well-established party that those who call themselves independent may join—it is called the Liberal Democrat party or the Literal Democrat Party. Nevertheless, I wish him well in his attempt to persuade the House's authorities that his own party should be recognised.
The first point that I should like to deal with is the Palace theatre, in Westcliff.

Mr. Viggers: Again.

Mr. Amess: Yes, again.
As we move towards Christmas, we think of pantomimes and of the Government. The Palace theatre will be inviting people to watch its latest production—a Christmas production of "Peter Pan". However, unless the Government accept responsibility for something, there will not be another Christmas pantomime at the Palace theatre. The trust board has announced that the Palace theatre will be closing in the spring and that its 42 staff will be made redundant because of a lack of funding. I have raised the issue before with Ministers, but they claim that they are not responsible and it is all down to the Eastern arts board.
I am not putting up with this. We need grown-up politics. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has some responsibility. It is not acceptable to say that it is all down to how much the Eastern arts board allocates. I should like the Minister to have a word with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ask for fair treatment. When the Wolsey theatre in Ipswich gets £322,750, the Mercury theatre in Colchester gets £230,000 and the Palace theatre in Watford gets £204,000, it is not fair that we get £45,000. Our magnificent theatre was given to Southend at the start of the century so that children, women and men could enjoy productions there.
We are not being well served by the Government or the Eastern arts board. I support the Southend arts council in its endeavours to ensure fair treatment. I had a meeting with the chief executive of the Eastern arts board and his sidekick about a year ago. There has been some criticism of the management of the theatre for not putting on sufficiently adventurous productions. When the Palace theatre puts on so-called adventurous productions, not enough people turn up. When it puts on perhaps rather more down-market, popular productions, the place is sold out. The theatre seems to be doing the bidding of the Eastern arts board, yet one local production lost £50,000.
The Minister may not be able to give an intelligent answer in the time available, but if he is not able to say anything to me this morning, perhaps he will ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to write to me. I shall not remain silent on the issue. I do not blame the trust, which was under the superb leadership of Mr. Albert Reddihough, who devoted 12 years to the theatre. I do not blame the council. I am supporting the local community. We all understand that the arts have to be subsidised in some way. Compared with the amount of money being pumped into other theatres, our £45,000 is not fair.
My second point is on exclusion. Someone said to me the other day, "You can love your children, but you do not necessarily have to like them." We all know that children can break our hearts, but I am worried about the growing popularity of excluding children from school—not just secondary schools, but junior and infant schools. I am sure that I am not imagining the trend, given the number of parents making representations to me.
Before Labour Members groan, I should like to point out that I was here when we had a vote on the retention of corporal punishment. That vote was lost by one. I do not intend to rewrite history, but I believe that it was a mistake. It is difficult for teachers today. They can no longer resort to corporal punishment. They try to persuade children. We all know about the assaults that have taken place and the stress that teachers are under, but too many children are being excluded. They are eventually expelled, people are sent in to try to educate them at home, they all gather together and they are condemned to a life of failure. Is it any wonder that the peak age of offending is 15, given how we are treating children?
Under the new Government, we live in a land of milk and honey with apple pie and all of that. What is the Government's answer to exclusion? Many schools are cute, going for a fixed-term exclusion of up to 14 days. Parents may ask for an appeal, but when the governors meet, usually in a panel of three, they inevitably support the head teacher. The increasing popularity of exclusion is not good enough. I hope that the Minister will pass on my remarks to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
My third point is about the millennium dome. It is a disgrace. I could not care less if the Conservative Government thought up the idea. I was never consulted and there was never a vote in the House on it. It is a ridiculous project that the Labour Government have not only continued to support, but enhanced. A few weeks ago I visited the millennium dome. I make no criticism of the people who escorted me round the site. I was treated extremely well. In case there are any hon. Members who have not yet been there, I can tell them that it is a huge circus tent. When Big Ben strikes 12 and the year 2000 arrives, 10,000 invited guests—I realise that I shall not be one of them—will be asked to watch a circus. That is supposed to be how we celebrate the millennium.
All the talk about the project being behind schedule is rubbish. The 14 exhibition areas are all on time. I think that three of them have been handed over. It is no longer a temporary site, but a permanent one. I have no argument with it being at Greenwich because of the meridian, but anyone who knows London as I do realises that people cannot travel easily in Greenwich by car. The millennium dome is built over the Blackwall tunnel. The air vent even comes up in the middle of the dome. I am told that 12 million people will visit in the first year and will get


there on the Jubilee line. We all know what happened when a Minister gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee last week. We are told that 35 trains will bring people in to see the millennium dome. That is cloud cuckoo land. Apparently, a few people will travel on water—a new jetty is being built—but the projections are implausible.
Never mind about the Pompidou building, we have the dreadful Lloyds building and other horrendous buildings, yet we have allowed the same architect to indulge himself further with the millennium dome. It is an ugly building. I bitterly resent the idea that future generations will feel that Members of Parliament enthusiastically agreed that it would be a good way to celebrate the year 2000. I think of the beauty of the Palace of Westminster and magnificent buildings such as St. Paul's. If we had to have a building, it certainly should not have been the millennium dome.
While I am on the subject, Southend has not had a penny to celebrate the millennium. With the huge amount of talent that we have, we shall celebrate it in a fitting way, but not with the millennium dome.
My final point is about the increasing Americanisation of this country and the Government. I have always been pro-America and Americans, but I am sick to death of America at the moment. For the President of the United States of America to lie to the grand jury and the American people and then be rewarded with a net gain of five congressional seats says a great deal about contemporary American culture. A British Prime Minister could not get away with such behaviour. I am talking not about sex, but about the suicides over Whitewater and other issues. Yet the leader of the Labour party could not be closer to the President of the United States of America. Consider his agreement with the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan. When Labour Members did not like the sinking of the Belgrano, we heard about it day in, day out, but they have said not a word about Sudan and Afghanistan. We are deeply damaged by the association of the British Prime Minister with the American President.
I am sick to death of the Government's glitz and the rubbish that they talk about the Post Office, pensions and social security. They have no original ideas, only rhetoric and glitz. In joining other hon. Members in wishing the House a very happy Christmas, my hope for the millennium is that the Government are replaced by a decent Conservative Government.

12 noon

Sir Patrick Cormack: None of us would disagree with some of the concluding words of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). Indeed, some of us emphatically agree with him about the replacement of the Government. It is rather good to end the debate with a typical bravura performance from my hon. Friend, who participates in every one of these debates. We have heard about the Palace theatre at Westcliff at least twice. Although I wish him every success in getting money for the theatre—and he makes his cause passionately and eloquently—if by any sad chance the theatre closes and there is no pantomime next year, his constituents have only to come to the Strangers Gallery to be suitably entertained.
I should also stress that my hon. Friend's views on the United States do not represent official Conservative party policy, nor do his views on the millennium dome.

Although he made some interesting comments, he slightly over-exaggerated the transport problem. If the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State wish to go to the dome, they have only to walk on the water to get there.
I warmly congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his appointment. When I walked into the Chamber this morning shortly before Prayers, I had no idea that he would be replying to the debate. He has been suitably rewarded with a ministerial post and I wish him long life and happiness in it. This morning he has the opportunity to answer his hon. Friends and Opposition Members with positive assurances in the certain knowledge that he can give a ministerial commitment but cannot be sacked within 24 hours of being appointed. So I look forward to assurances on picket lines, hospitals and everything else that hon. Members have requested.
Today's debate is one of the highlights of the parliamentary calender. It happens three or four times a year and it is an institution that I hope no Modernisation Committee will ever sweep away as it provides an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to raise a range of subjects.
This morning we began with a speech from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is a regular participant in these debates. This time he did not plead for peace in Cyprus, which was the subject of his previous offering, but underlined the acute concern felt by all hon. Members at the deplorable cases of child cruelty that have occupied so much space in the newspapers recently. He pointed to one or two particularly tragic cases and used his experience as a local councillor to underline how critical it is that the services responsible for ministering to those poor unfortunate children get their act together in a more co-ordinated and sensible manner.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) highlighted a particular case in his constituency involving the difficulties faced by children and their grandparents who have to bring them up because of their mother's drug addiction. Quite rightly, my hon. Friend did not mention the names of the people concerned, but spoke quietly and eloquently about their plight. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the concerns that he raised. My hon. Friend could not resist referring to the Government's capping of Derbyshire county council and made a trenchant point most effectively.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) made a commendably—and unusually—brief speech. He made only one point: that the Government should honour their commitment on freedom of information and produce a substantive Bill at the earliest possible date. Bearing in mind all the work that was done by the previous Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it should not be beyond the wit of the Government to do that. Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman's plea has been heeded. Of course we should want to examine such a Bill with great care and my commending his speech should not be taken as a blanket assurance that we will agree with every particular in the Bill. Nevertheless, we would like such a Bill. It was promised to us and we wish to debate it thoroughly.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made a commendably brief and most eloquent speech about the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 and the peculiar


anomaly in which he finds himself as a result of that measure. I must say that I do not agree with the uncharacteristically churlish remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West about the hon. Member for Tatton, who in his brief time in the House has already illustrated the real value that an Independent Member can bring to our deliberations. Although I cannot guarantee that I will not campaign against him if he decides to stand in the next election—

Mr. Paul Tyler: It might help.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Indeed it might. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Tatton has enlivened our debates and brings a degree of dispassionate commitment to the subjects that we discuss. This morning he made a valid point that should be taken on board—indeed, it was taken on board by the Opposition during the passage of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) spoke about the north-west, emphasising housing and transport needs. I associate myself absolutely with his plea for the west coast main line that goes through my constituency. It is crucial that it is upgraded as soon as possible. Of course I cannot do the same in respect of his plea for regional government. It came a little quaintly from the hon. Gentleman, who always looks so benign. One expects him to be speaking for the north-west of Scotland, but of course he represents the north-west of England and is himself a wonderful example of the value and virtue of the United Kingdom that is so menaced by devolution and would be further threatened by regional government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an omnibus speech in which he raised four topics. He talked about the channel tunnel rail link and seems to suspect a manipulative coalition between the Government and Railtrack. It would be unfair to expect them today from the Minister, but I hope that we shall have some reassurances in a detailed letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. Friend, dispelling his conspiracy theory.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the fruit industry and some of the slightly strange practices of supermarkets. I was shocked by what he said about the supermarket trying to get the grower to give money to charity so that the supermarket could bask in reflected glory. I was even more disturbed by what he said about the fruit grower who found his so-called rejected strawberries being sold on the shelves. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) interjected from a sedentary position, "That is criminal". If that is happening it is indeed criminal and I hope that the fruit farmer in question follows the advice of his sage Member of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent also spoke about the problem caused by cheaper diesel fuel being available on the continent, particularly in France and Belgium, and he also made a short but powerful plea on behalf of the Kent and Canterbury hospital.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) talked about the fine historic buildings in his constituency. I have a great fellow feeling for him, although he was obviously a little embarrassed that a number of those

buildings belonged to Harrow school, which received only a passing mention—one understands the political correctness that probably dictated that omission. As chairman of the all-party arts and heritage group, I entirely endorse his plea and what he said about the excellent work of English Heritage, both under its first chairman, Lord Montagu, and under its current chairman, Sir Jocelyn Stevens. I hope that Sir Jocelyn and Pam Alexander, the chief executive, will read and act on the hon. Gentleman's words.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked about the needs of the national health service in Northern Ireland, particularly the need to upgrade the ambulance service if what he called the golden six hospitals were to function effectively. He also spoke about the plight of children and those with learning difficulties. He made a powerful plea for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is right to salute the men and women of the RUC at Christmas, a season when they have had so many difficult tasks to perform—they have served with exemplary courage through some of the most difficult years in our nation's history.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who is another regular in these debates and has a commendable track record on Northern Ireland, is also an exemplary constituency Member of Parliament. He legitimately used this debate to make an appeal through the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that his plea for a calling-in of the application that he mentioned will meet with some success.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea is, if one had to categorise him, the most unlikely candidate for any picket line that one could imagine. He nevertheless explained why his quietly passionate concern for animals led him to join a picket line during his temporary sojourn—self-inflicted but soon regretted—from the House of Commons. He made a powerful plea for the Government to honour their manifesto commitment for a royal commission. Although he recognised the delicacy of the situation, he did not, if I may say so, underline the fact that the Government have a real problem with Mr. Horne, who is a criminal guilty of terrorist acts—the Government would have been entirely wrong to give the impression of bowing to demands. We must put on the record our view that those who commit criminal acts in any cause are not to be condoned.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) made a plea for the cleaners of Hillingdon. I sincerely hope that Granada will heed what he said. He also talked feelingly about the licensee of a pub in Harmondsworth and his wife, whose life work is threatened by eviction. Let us hope that those responsible for that public house will heed what has been said this morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) talked about the parlous state of the Defence Medical Services. He made a plea for Haslar hospital to be saved. The hospital is of supreme importance, not only in the context of the defence medical services, but to his constituency. He, too, has a fine reputation as a constituency Member of Parliament and has great knowledge of defence matters. There can be few hon. Members who realised that there are only four orthopaedic surgeons in the Army or the significance of the hospital in whose defence he spoke so passionately. Although I cannot promise to join him on the march on,


I think, 24 January, I hope that many others will and that, even before then, the Government give him the assurances that he so rightly seeks.
I end where I began—with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. He has an inimitable style and is always capable of entertaining the House. Whether he performs on the boards at Westcliff, in the dome or anywhere else, I am sure that he will always be able to raise a hearty laugh among his audience. That laugh will be affectionate, as he is a man without an ounce of malice, who has served the House and his constituents well.
That is a good note on which to end. I conclude by reiterating my congratulations to the hon. Member for Sherwood and by wishing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members present a very happy Christmas.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I apologise for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House cannot be with us today. She is involved in Privy Council business and, to my cost, I am at the Dispatch Box. I am grateful to hon. Members for their good wishes. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that he was surprised to see me here, but I doubt whether he was half as surprised as I am. I have tried not to become a smooth man, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) would say, and I believe that there is room in the House for a bit of sinew.
This has been an interesting debate on a number of themes. At Christmas, it is important that we talk about children, so it has been fascinating to hear how many times children's issues have been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) all mentioned children. I agree that it is important to invest in children and in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) used a word with which I am familiar—mithering. There has rightly been a good deal of mithering for hon. Members' constituents and community interests. The hon. Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) all made effective cases for causes and concerns in their areas.
Thirteen hon. Members have had the opportunity to speak; they have raised a number of important issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting took pole position yet again. I was delighted to hear his comments about the need to listen to children. Children often talk honestly; we should listen closely when they tell us things. The Government have set up a listening service for children and I hope that we will build on that work. I also hope that we will develop the "quality protects" programme announced on 21 September, which is investing an extra £375 million in residential services, so that we can give children in care a better deal. My hon. Friend is right to say that we should investigate any failures in the child care system and try to learn lessons for the future.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire spoke movingly about a case in Derby. He was right to stress the importance, where it is possible, of family care so that children can keep in touch with their family of origin and

remain involved in the community. He was sceptical about the attitude of the local social services department; I will ensure that his concerns are passed to the relevant Ministers and that there is some discussion with Derby social services. He mentioned an old favourite of his, Derbyshire county council, in which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire also takes a great interest. He referred to this year's budget, but I know from my own experience how delighted council leaders are with this year's settlement, which far exceeds anything that they received under the previous Government. I hope that that will be a foundation for the council to develop and build services in Derbyshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, in a short but effective speech, asked about the freedom of information Bill. I am delighted to reassure him that a draft Bill will be published early in the new year—towards the end of January, or perhaps into February—and there will be pre-legislative scrutiny. We propose legislation for the whole life of a Parliament, and my hon. Friend will have heeded the commitment of the Prime Minister to ensure that, during the lifetime of this Parliament, we will have a freedom of information Act. My hon. Friend also tried to tempt me into looking at MI6, but I will resist that temptation this morning.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) spoke about the effects of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, and their consequences for him. He is right to say that the word "Independent" cannot be registered—for example, "Independent Labour party" or "Independent Ratepayers party". However, it will still be possible for candidates such as the hon. Gentleman to describe themselves as Independent. One of the important parts of the new Act is a Committee of Members of this House, who will advise the registrar for political parties. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will pursue that route.
I have a feeling that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles was a "Blue Peter" speech—one that he had prepared earlier. I know that he missed an opportunity to make this speech only a few days ago. People in Eccles are keen to make best use of their endeavours and not throw anything away. My hon. Friend made some important points about the need to set performance targets for regional development agencies and regional chambers. I agree that these are important new bodies which must be accountable and must deliver. I will draw the attention of ministerial colleagues to my hon. Friend's speech.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made a number of points—all, save one, with a European theme. European influences have a great effect on his part of the country. I have known for a long time of his concerns about the channel tunnel rail link and the dereliction and blight caused in his area. I support him entirely in his view that we must ensure that both the first and second phases of the link are completed. The two phases are linked, and there will be consequences for Railtrack if they do not go forward.
Like the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, I come from a rural background and I do not underestimate the importance of the fruit industry. It is important that we look at the power of supermarkets, and he may know that the Office of Fair Trading is currently looking at supermarkets. I hope that it looks closely at


pricing policies, and that it will come forward with proposals for us to buy British—to buy Kent fruit and British beef and meat.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent was keen to point out the difficulties that haulage operators in his area face in terms of fuel duty. That is a problem, but some of our rates of taxation are lower than those in other parts of the continent. He referred also to Kent and Canterbury hospital, a subject that is before Ministers. I know that his representations will be heard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West spoke forcefully about the joys of Harrow. I entirely agree that we should encourage environmental initiatives and open spaces. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Richard Rogers's task force on urban regeneration. Like my hon. Friend, I would like to see more greenery and open spaces in our urban areas.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South spoke movingly about the need to get away from "yah-boo politics" and get on with the real issues. He talked about the need to invest in the health service in Northern Ireland, the distances involved and the importance of making sure that services are close to local people.
I was particularly interested in the points that the hon. Member for Belfast, South made about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is important to put on record our respect for the work of the RUC. We must ensure also that it has the right equipment, and I do not believe that any police force should have second-hand equipment. However, police forces can learn from one another; just as the RUC can learn from the Met, I am sure that there are things that the Met can learn from the RUC.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire mentioned the Avenue cokeworks, which I have had the opportunity of visiting. It is a difficult site, with many problems. I know of my hon. Friend's fight against opencasting, and he made a strong point about looking at bio-remediation measures, rather than dump-and-dispose measures, on that site. I know that he has met with Ministers and I will take up the case on his behalf.
The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) has a long-standing involvement in animal welfare issues, and talked about the Labour document,

"New Labour: New Life for Animals". I must say that there was no manifesto commitment to a royal commission, but I am pleased to inform him that the notion of a royal commission has not been ruled out, and progress is being made. More inspectors have been appointed, there has been a ban on cosmetic testing on animals and there is a ban on testing animals in relation to alcohol and tobacco. A great deal needs to be done and we need to build on the work of the Animal Procedures Committee before moving to a final decision on a royal commission.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) said about the dispute. I believe that measures such as the minimum wage and the White Paper on fairness at work will provide the right balance.
The hon. Member for Gosport spoke strongly and with authority about the problems at Haslar hospital. I will ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of ministerial colleagues. I know that he gave a trailer for a demonstration on 24 March and I wish him and the demonstration well.
I will not be drawn on to the boards of the Palace theatre by the hon. Member for Southend, West.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): A fine place.

Mr. Tipping: A fine place, indeed.
Nor do I want to say much about the millennium dome, which will be a monument on which people can make a judgment for themselves. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about having a proper share of lottery funding across the country. We have made progress on this, although a lot remains to be done.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of truancy and school exclusion. I do not know whether he has seen the report of the social exclusion unit, which sets out a way forward.
I conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as is the tradition, by wishing you, the staff of the House and all my colleagues both a merry Christmas and, let us hope, a prosperous and peaceful new year.

British Science

Dr. Ian Gibson: European directive 90/220 will certainly not set the world alight, nor will it knock Delia Smith off the top of the bestsellers list at Christmas, but I would like to put it in context because it raises some important issues.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said recently:
Knowledge is the key to competitive advantage in the global economy.
He went on to say that the Government have a vital role in building and maintaining a powerful knowledge base in our universities, which is why we are putting an extra £1.4 billion, with the Wellcome Trust, into upgrading Britain's science, reversing years of neglect—as was admitted recently in an astonishing burst of honesty from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Science Minister.
Other Government initiatives include a £50 million university challenge fund to exploit university research and develop it in industry. The Department of Trade and Industry has emphasised the startling advances in science and technology, and especially in biotechnology. The Science and Technology Select Committee is currently holding an inquiry into the process of innovation—how scientific discoveries are moved into the workplace—here and in the United States of America. It is clear that moving ideas into industry and the marketplace will require a proactive Government and individual creativity.
The European directive fits into that pattern. It governs a new technology, stating that it regulates
the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms".
These days, that generally means plants. The directive is designed for experimental and marketing purposes. It follows laboratory stages and tests and is used to assess growth, yields and survivability of plants. The tests start in pots and progress to a few square metres, and finally a large number of hectares.
The regulations require applicants to submit detailed information covering all aspects of the proposed release, the genes and organisms and the transformation methods used, as well as a comprehensive risk assessment, evaluating the risks posed to human health and the environment. Applicants must include full details of how the risk will be managed. There is a fast-track procedure to get information in 30 days, but the standard procedure takes 90 days before approval is given. The final stage after that is the commercialisation of the product.
Companies wanting to market seed in Europe must seek clearance under directive 90/220. Seed directives require national testing before any seed can be grown commercially. The next stage involves approval by every EU competent authority in all member states. Anomalies have certainly arisen in the process. The procedure, and especially the approval process, means that member states can object to anything approved in Britain, for example, while anything approved in Europe can be marketed in this country.
The public are disturbed by the use of genetically modified plants as foodstuffs. A debate is going on about the benefits versus the risks of the technology, not only

to human health but to biodiversity and the environment. An assessment can be made only by monitoring, experiments and field trials.
I invite the Minister to comment on weekend newspaper reports stating that a key Government report on the effects of growing genetically modified crops has been suppressed because of a controversial warning of serious environmental risks to our hedgerows, birds and indigenous plants posed by growing genetically modified crops on a commercial scale. It is rumoured that the document also reveals a series of gaps in the UK regulatory framework.
In general, procedures for small experimental releases, which include control measures for reducing pollen transfer, for example, work well, because member states have a fair degree of autonomy. The main problems arise when approval is sought for marketing across the European Union. Within the UK, marketing proposals have been dealt with efficiently and within the deadlines agreed in the directive. Decisions at EU level take an excessive and unpredictable time.
Short licence periods—it is now suggested that they be up to seven years—have been proposed, with no further guarantee of renewal. That is extremely frustrating in an area of plant production in which continuous development is needed. The monitoring processes are too detailed, complex and cumbersome.
The directive applies only to the products of genetic modification and ignores similar modifications made by conventional breeding. If, for example, we consider the potential long-term environmental and agricultural impact of genetically modified plants with herbicide tolerance, we should take account of similar varieties produced by conventional breeding. It is illogical for the full weight of regulatory oversight to fall on GM varieties, while the potential input of similar, conventionally bred, varieties is largely ignored.
The risk assessment carried out before releasing a GM organism must be based on a careful scientific analysis. We in the UK have worked hard to maintain a strong scientific base in that process. An important part of the underlying research has been carried out by or in association with people in my constituency, at the John Innes centre in Norwich, but there is strong evidence that political considerations have influenced the decisions in the EU regulatory process. Public concerns must be listened to and taken into account, but in the long term political concerns should not be used to influence scientific assessment in the application of GM organisms. The scientific and political processes should be kept separate.
It is important for decisions made in one EU country to be acceptable in another. We need to continue the hard work to attempt to achieve harmonisation of the regulations in the risk assessment process among member states and between the EU and other continents, especially north America—although I doubt that the Americans will agree at this stage, because their regulations are very much more lax than ours.
Monitoring the impact of GM crops on the environment, and on food and feed, should be an integral part of the commercialisation process. Certain risk assessment issues are scale dependent and can realistically be assessed only as part of the scale-up procedure, with the hectare field trials that I mentioned. Public and scientific confidence will


be improved by instigating a careful, scientifically rigorous monitoring programme. Many scientists in this country, including those in Norwich, will play a major part in that monitoring process and in using their scientific expertise to develop it.
The directive has features that could turn scientists and companies away from Europe and towards the United States of America or elsewhere, thus weakening the competitiveness of European agriculture and destroying the scientific base in our biotechnology industry, which is one of the best in the world and one of the great hopes for industry in this country, producing new vaccines, medicines and the plants about which I have spoken.
The directive needs amendment, adaptation and revision, so that permission to release GM organisms is based on sound scientific and objective information. Each release should be approved by a committee that is truly independent and not based on European political in-fighting. I suggest that the European Medical Agency is just such a body, in which scientific differences could be discussed, and indeed reconciled, to prevent such conflicts as have arisen and will arise again in the coming year or even months.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I join my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office in conveying seasonal greetings to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to others in the House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who has always been deeply concerned with science. He has always been at the forefront in the House in promoting debate on science. I note that he mentioned the John Innes centre, which is famous among the many gardeners who follow developments in fertiliser and was connected with the late Percy Thrower, who did such a marvellous job for horticulture in the United Kingdom.
The principle of sound science is fundamental to the Government's approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms. That is the case at the national, European and wider international levels. The Government recognise that the technology has enormous potential to improve the quality of life and the competitiveness of the economy, and that the regulatory system needs to support technical developments without imposing unjustified burdens on industry. However, the protection of human health is paramount and the impact on the environment and biodiversity, along with ethical issues, must be thoroughly assessed. The Government are determined that the regulatory system will not allow any product to move to commercialisation before practical evidence on safety is available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North asked about recent press reports. The draft report in question was written by a senior scientist in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and explores the wider implications for farmland wildlife and the environment of the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops. The risks arising from genetic modification itself are fully covered by scientific legislation, and the

report addressed other possible indirect effects. We have no evidence of any harmful effects, but the issues must be explored and have been under debate in the Department for some time. I assure my hon. Friend that no report has been suppressed. The risks of the introduction of genetically modified crops into commercial agriculture are being openly discussed and closely regulated.
In order to address concerns about the possible effects on farmland wildlife, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced on 21 October that ecological studies will be undertaken on farm-scale planting of genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant crops, starting in 1999. The Government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—will now take wider biodiversity issues into account when considering proposals to market genetically modified crops. Those issues will be discussed in detail through an ACRE expert working group and the conclusions will be made public and published.
The United Kingdom has an active and successful biotechnology industry. It spans a wide range of sectors including the pharmaceutical, diagnostic and agri-food sectors. There are more than 250 biotechnology small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom, with total biotechology-dependent sales by UK companies reaching £4 billion. That figure is expected to rise to £9 billion by 2000. United Kingdom biotechnology start-up companies alone currently employ more than 11,000 people. If the anticipated growth occurs, that figure will increase substantially. However, the continued success of the industry depends on public confidence in the technology and a strong, transparent regulatory regime is a vital factor.
At the national level, advice on the release of GMOs into the environment is given to the Secretary of State for the Environment frequently by ACRE, which is one of four statutory scientific and technical committees that give advice to the Government on GMOs. Members of ACRE are appointed on the basis of their technical and scientific expertise in subjects necessary for the assessment and understanding of the highly technical information provided in applications to release genetically modified organisms. Currently, they are a mix of specialists in sciences related to biotechnology, entomology and plant ecology, food safety and human health, and environmental affairs. ACRE is increasingly being asked to address wider issues, and my Department proposes to strengthen the committee's expertise in ecology and biodiversity, agronomy and farming practice.
In the European arena, the United Kingdom has welcomed the Commission's proposals to amend directive 90/220. Experience has shown the importance of the existing sound regulatory framework that secures the protection of the environment and human health while at the same time encouraging the development of biotechnology products and providing a route to their marketing in the community. However, the technology is developing quickly and we recognise that the existing directive needs to be updated.
The main problems that have been encountered with the directive have been the bureaucracy entailed in the approvals procedure in the European Commission and the difficulty of resolving differences of opinion between member states about the products. Concern has also been expressed, by ourselves and others, that the directive does not provide the framework necessary to address the


increasing concerns of the public and industry. In our view, the Commission's proposal went some way towards dealing with those problems, although it could do more.
The Government's aim in negotiating the amendment with our European partners has been to ensure that the right balance is struck between protecting the environment and human health and at the same time providing enough certainty for business to allow it to have the confidence to develop new products. The Government believe that our approach is right for the environment and right for business. The revised directive will include agreed time scales—which are vital to the industry—for the approvals procedures. Negotiations have centred on the balance between periods for consideration of dossiers by competent authorities and periods for mediation.
It is generally agreed that the existing 30-day period is not long enough for a competent authority fully to consider a new marketing dossier. A longer period of, perhaps, 45 days appears to be preferred, with a similar period for mediation. Fifteen days is also considered by many to be inadequate for assessing whether a notification complies with the criteria for simplified procedures. We are still some distance from reaching agreement on those points and further discussions on the details surrounding time scales and procedures will be necessary.
The Commission has proposed an enabling provision for simplified procedures for marketing notifications of certain GMO products, but did not specify the procedures or the criteria. Considerable misgivings have been expressed about such an open provision and they have led to calls for criteria, or guidelines for criteria, to be developed before the amending directive is adopted.
The United Kingdom has supported the introduction of differentiated procedures for marketing applications in principle, but of course the criteria will be critical. If there is any ambiguity, notifiers applying under the simplified procedure could find that the competent authority does not agree and rejects their notification. Even if the competent authority which receives the notification agrees that it fulfils the simplified procedure criteria, other competent authorities might disagree and object to notification. Should it not prove possible at this stage to develop clear guidelines or criteria, it may be appropriate to abandon the provision.
To ensure full protection for human health and the environment, the Government support the view that thorough risk assessments are essential and should address direct and indirect effects, and immediate and delayed effects. The United Kingdom has long emphasised the need to develop a harmonised approach to risk assessment for the release of GMOs, and that will be helped by the proposed introduction of the principles of risk assessment. That will foster the harmonisation that will improve the approvals procedures.
The Government believe it right to take a cautious approach during the early stages of relatively large-scale use of the technology. Hon. Members will be interested to know that the current directive does not require any monitoring after a marketing consent has been issued, although it would be possible to attach a specific monitoring condition to such a consent. Rigorous post-commercialisation monitoring forms a fundamental part of the revised procedures.
The Commission proposes to require notifiers to supply a detailed monitoring plan. The United Kingdom believes that no matter how detailed the scientific evidence

indicating that a product will not have adverse effects, we still require field observations to confirm that. There should be a means by which unexpected adverse effects can be fed back to the consent holder and the competent authority.
Clear and unambiguous labelling of genetically modified products will be vital to ensure consumer acceptance. The Commission proposal requires that products be labelled either "contains GMOs" or "may contain GMOs". Most member states want to remove the latter option as it offers little useful information to the end user. However, requiring that products be labelled positively raises the question of how to deal with cases in which a GMO is present in trace amounts or in which there are impurities in a non-GMO product.
Further difficulties arise where similar GMO and non-GMO products are mixed together, as sometimes occurs with commodities. One possibility is the establishment of a mechanism to determine thresholds for specific classes of GMO products or individual GMOs, rather than fixing a single cut-off point for labelling. That would ensure that information was freely available to the consumer on GMO products, and that is another important step towards securing consumer confidence in the technology.
As far as action by the UK is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment recently announced that agreement had been reached with the plant breeding industry for a programme of managed development of herbicide-tolerant GM crops under which the first farm-scale plantings of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would be strictly limited and monitored for ecological effects alongside comparable plantings of conventional crops.
That process will be underpinned by the code of practice of the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, a consortium of bodies representing plant breeders, agri-chemical companies and farmers. The code is voluntary for farmers who wish to grow GM crops developed by SCIMAC. Independent scientists would be able to see whether there were any harmful effects by studying crops on the field scale before widespread commercialisation. If ecological monitoring did reveal harm to the environment, the Government would take appropriate action, including a ban if necessary.
There have been a number of reports that we have imposed a three-year moratorium on insect-resistant crops, but that is not true. We have established with industry that no insect-resistant GM crops are in the final stages of development to be suitable for cultivation in the UK. For that reason, we do not expect insect-resistant GM crops to be grown commercially in the UK for at least three years. The concept of managed development provides a precautionary way forward to investigating, in a proper scientific framework, concerns that some GM crops might be harmful to the environment.
The principle of sound science runs through our policies, in domestic measures such as those that I have outlined and in our negotiations in Europe on directive 90/220. That principle also runs through our measures in the wider international field. The UK has supported a twin-track approach to the development of an international framework on biosafety, based on the promotion of the United Nations Environment Programme's comprehensive international technical


guidelines on safety in biotechnology and the development of a biosafety protocol on the transboundary movement of living modified organisms under the convention on biological diversity. In current negotiations on the biosafety protocol, the UK is working with European Union colleagues and through other international groupings to produce an effective international instrument that will contribute to the safe use of biotechnology on the basis of scientific risk assessment and the precautionary principle.
That is an outline of the Government's position on these matters, which has been badly misrepresented in the media. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North for the magnificent way in which he continues to develop the debate on science and technology. I wish him well in his endeavours.

Sitting suspended.

Railtrack

1 pm

On resuming—

Dr. Evan Harris: I am pleased to be able to bring to the House's attention the serious question of Railtrack's activities through its attempted use of permitted development rights in Oxford; and the wider questions of whether companies, particularly privatised utilities such as Railtrack should be able to exercise permitted development rights; and, also—if they are allowed to do so—what forms of consultation with local communities they should undertake and what bearing those consultations should have on outcomes. There is the further question of whether it is appropriate, fair and an act of natural justice for compensation to be payable by local authorities to private companies when those local authorities are successful in defending their local environment.
My constituency interest arises from the proposed development of a ballast storage facility, or what Railtrack calls a virtual quarry, at Hinksey sidings, which abuts my constituency, especially the community of South Hinksey. The site itself and another group of residents who are greatly affected by the proposals—those in New Hinksey and South Oxford—are in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), whom I see in his place. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a long and careful interest in the matter and has, like me, heard representations from local people for many months. I am sure that he has passed those on to the Government and added his own representations. Railtrack's activities concern many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who intends, after I have concluded my remarks, to raise the question of Railtrack's general attitude to development in his area.
I feel strongly about the subject, because Railtrack's activities in the case I shall describe have been appalling, not only in its proposals—though one might even argue that the company is entitled to make proposals—but in its response to subsequent events. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) who is to wind up the debate, will be aware that Railtrack has an important responsibility to improve the country's rail network—to upgrade existing rail lines to ensure that they can take faster trains, thereby enabling services to be improved, and to build more lines where necessary. I understand that that requires the laying down of large amounts of hard rock; and that to make that an effective method of building railway lines, Railtrack has to create storage facilities for the quarried rock around the country; and that 13 or 14 such sites are required.
The proposal that Railtrack made in respect of Hinksey sidings in Oxfordshire is for the 13th, or almost the last, of those stockpiling facilities. It has met with strong opposition because of the green-belt status of the site on which the company has chosen to build the storage facility. The fact that it would be a large, highly visible pile of rocks and stones, together with the added noise and dust pollution resulting from stones being transported to and from the site, would significantly reduce the amenity of people living in the area. There has been


strong local opposition, not only to the concept and the likelihood of pollution, but to the activities of Railtrack subsequent to events and the manner and mode of its consultation.
One would expect Railtrack to have made a thorough environmental impact assessment before the consultation period started. One would expect Railtrack to communicate carefully with local democratically elected representatives, including, but not exclusively, Members of Parliament. One would expect Railtrack to have given adequate consideration to other options before settling on the proposed site. However, Railtrack has been clearly seen by local people and independent observers to have failed in every single one of those duties, even though they are only the minimum that one could expect the company to perform.
Although we understand that Railtrack has to do its job, the company has to understand that it, as custodian to a large extent of the country's environment, has to balance that need to get on with its job with sensitivity to the environment. The Liberal Democrats have always believed that to protect the environment might in the short term cost a little more in purely financial terms, but that it is an investment worth making, not only for the sake of the improved quality of life and benefits that extend from a good environment, but because certain aspects of our environment and landscape are finite resources. Those sentiments have been echoed by Ministers who say they are concerned with the principle of protecting the environment.
It is clear that, by the time Railtrack produced its proposals, it had not considered either the environmental costs of choosing the site, or seriously considered choosing a different site which might have been more expensive, but which would have done the job at a lower environmental cost. One has to ask whether Railtrack failed to do that because it was concerned solely with its profits—profits that the newly appointed independent rail regulator has recently judged to be excessive. The company is now under the microscope as to whether it is concerned solely with potential profits and shareholder dividends, rather than with its wider social responsibilities. It is a monopoly organisation, so it should pay special attention to those wider responsibilities. It has inherited certain rights and responsibilities from a publicly owned corporation, British Rail, which, for all its faults, would not have acted in as shabby and arrogant a manner as Railtrack has exhibited in Oxford.
When the consultation process opened, we were led to believe that it would be a valid process—that whatever the views expressed by local people and their representatives, they would be heeded by Railtrack. To my disappointment, but not to any great surprise, I have recently learnt that a contract covering the site named as Hinksey sidings had already been signed, sealed and delivered to Midland Quarry Products by the time that that company released its prospectus on 1 June; yet the consultation with local people started much later that summer. I have asked the Minister about the need for Railtrack to carry out adequate consultation. His reply stated that guidance on non-statutory consultation makes it clear that
both local planning authorities and the public should be informed of proposals for permitted development which are likely to affect them significantly, before the proposals are finalised."—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 22.]

There is no doubt that Railtrack, in its own mind, and in its contract with the sub-contractors, finalised the proposals even before consultation had started.
The specific problems that were drawn to Railtrack's attention during the so-called consultation related to the impact of noise on local people's enjoyment of their homes and gardens and the amenity of local playgroups and doctors' surgeries. All those groups made representations saying that the noise—effectively that of quarrying work—would significantly reduce their quality of life. Another representation was made in respect of health concerns relating to dust pollution. Railtrack sought to give reassurance in respect of both those matters, saying that there would not be significant noise disturbance because of the distances involved and that the stone would be thoroughly washed at source, so there would be little or no dust.

Mr. Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the unsatisfactory situation to which he rightly draws our attention is a consequence of the curious legal position in which Railtrack finds itself? As a private sector monopolistic company with public sector benefits inherited from British Rail, it should be investing far more in, for example, safety. It is overcharging some of the train operating companies for work done to stations. It is important that, when the strategic rail authority is established, powers should be taken away from Railtrack. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister set out today what powers are to be stripped from Railtrack as part of the Government's review of the rail industry?

Dr. Harris: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said, and I pay tribute to his sterling work in this area. He has been a thorn in the side of those who seek to exploit their monopoly position and pollute the environment. Railtrack's approach in this matter contrasts with its rather grand environmental policy statement produced in the corporate responsibility review 1997–98—I shall allow the word "responsibility" to hang in the air for a few minutes and return later to the question whether Railtrack is acting responsibly. The statement says:
We will ensure that new projects … are managed professionally in a way which incorporates assessment of environmental impact and takes appropriate action to keep any adverse impacts to a minimum.
We will aim to be sensitive in our management of natural and heritage features, taking into consideration the views of all those with an interest in our activities and working with them where appropriate.
Before my hon. Friend's intervention, I was referring to my constituents' many concerns about the project, including noise and dust pollution. Railtrack has demonstrated breathtaking irresponsibility by proceeding with the development of the ballast stockpiling facility while an article 4 direction is pending—especially in view of its statements that it was prepared to listen and enter into genuine consultation.
Railtrack may find that its actions will count against it. Local residents have now witnessed at first hand the spoiling of the local amenity. They have heard the noise created by that activity and seen—and, I fear, suffered from—the dust pollution. All of the potential fears raised about the project have been realised even before the


Secretary of State reaches a decision regarding the article 4 direction. The concerns of my constituents and the constituents of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East have been validated by Railtrack's recent actions in creating a stockpile, de facto.
I think that it is arrogant for Railtrack to proceed while the Secretary of State's decision regarding the article 4 direction is pending. I hope that it will get its come-uppance in the form of representations to the Minister from local people detailing the damage to the environment and to the local amenity as a result of Railtrack's actions.
In view of those local concerns, Oxfordshire county council took the correct—although brave—decision to issue an article 4 direction which, if upheld by the Secretary of State, would force Railtrack to submit to the due planning process. The Minister knows that his Department received that article 4 direction on 2 November, and it informed me on 9 November that a decision would be made as soon as possible. There are clearly broader issues involved and a significant—indeed, a landmark—decision will have to be taken. So I might understand why the Secretary of State has delayed his decision. However, I seek his reassurance that Railtrack's decision to press on with its proposal will not have a bearing on his ultimate ruling, which should be based on the environmental merits of the case and not any situation that Railtrack has manufactured at the time that the decision is taken.
I now come to the question of compensation as it relates to this case. If Oxfordshire county council is successful and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions confirms the article 4 direction, Railtrack will be forced to undertake the normal planning process—which most would expect to be the normal procedure, given that this is a green-belt area. If Railtrack fails to secure planning permission and does not win any appeal, can it be right that Oxfordshire county council—which had succeeded in preventing a development that, in the view of the planning authorities, would damage the environment—should be forced to pay compensation? Moreover, such compensation would be paid out of the limited funds that are needed for the education of children and the provision of social services to the vulnerable, the young, the elderly and the mentally ill in Oxfordshire. Is it appropriate that the council should pay millions of pounds in compensation to a private company which has acted in such a manner, and which, in the view of the independent Rail Regulator, already makes excessive profits?
That cannot be allowed to happen. It is generally believed that the law must protect those who seek to defend our environment from unsuitable development. It is clear that, with a little more investment, Railtrack could use alternative sites in Oxfordshire, which would prevent the despoliation of Oxford's skyline and the loss of amenity to local people. I ask the Minister not only to urge the Secretary of State to uphold the article 4 direction, but to provide some encouragement in his winding-up speech today to my constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East in their campaign to prevent the development.
I pay tribute to the campaigners from South Hinksey, South Oxford and particularly the New Hinksey area for the strong, fair, factually accurate and articulate way in which they have put their case. Thanks to their efforts, the development has generated a great deal of media attention that has pointed to the significant problems that the development would cause for those in my constituency and the local area and which similar plans would cause for people up and down the country.

Mr. Phil Willis: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for allowing me to make a short speech during this Adjournment debate. I apologise to the Minister for my lack of courtesy in failing to let him know the contents of my contribution. I understand that he will respond to me in writing.
There is a saying that the sins of the fathers are often visited upon their sons. That is certainly true when examining the aftermath of the former Government's disastrous policy of selling off landholdings that were the key to improving the nation's transport infrastructure. Towns such as Harrogate are now paying the price: first, for the deregulation of the bus industry, which put valuable town-centre sites on the market for other than transport use; and then for the transfer of British Rail's former landholdings to Railtrack.
In Harrogate, development blight has virtually paralysed a strategic town-centre site for 15 years. The borough council, like the present Government, wants brown-field sites to be used for development. It wants to see retailing development and effective transport interchanges in our town centres. That would be possible without any cost to the Treasury or local taxpayers if Railtrack could be persuaded to use its strategic monopoly for public good as well as private profit.
The former bus station site in Harrogate cannot be developed without using adjacent land that is owned by Railtrack. The borough council rightly insists that any new development should have a transport interchange, including a bus station—a position that was confirmed twice by previous Secretaries of State on appeal. The borough council is willing to negotiate on commuted payment car parking to make the scheme a success, and the site's current owner, Scottish Widows, has agreed to operate on an "open book" basis with Railtrack in order to demonstrate that the development is marginal in profit terms.
Railtrack holds the key to the town's ambitions. It owns significant areas of land that have remained under-utilised for nearly 30 years. Yet every developer who appears—and there have been many—is treated with suspicion and often hostility, and usually gives up and moves away out of sheer frustration. Why? It is because Railtrack will not negotiate—and, frankly, as my hon. Friend said, it does not need to. That cannot be right.
If Railtrack had had to pay market value for its site, its accountants and shareholders would undoubtedly force it to act. As things stand, Railtrack can simply ignore the howls of public concern and sit on land for which it has no strategic use but will not release for the benefit of future investment in rail infrastructure or for the benefit of the people who wish to use the public transport system in Harrogate. Furthermore, the current planning


regulations will not allow the use of compulsory purchase powers because, if Railtrack claims operational use for any part of the land, it will become exempt. In short, Railtrack holds all the cards and the pack remains sealed.
It is ironic that, over the past 10 years, the council has secured investment of £750 million in the Harrogate station area. We seek two simple commitments from the Minister. First, when he next meets Railtrack will he please stress that areas like Harrogate—and Harrogate in particular—need Railtrack to co-operate in the planning system in order to provide the transport infrastructure that both the Government and the borough council desire? Furthermore, will he, if necessary, review the compulsory purchase regulations so that local councils can deal with the matter through their local planning process rather than having to wait for the vagaries of Railtrack and the market?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate on an issue which I know is of great concern not only to him and his constituents but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and his constituents. Both hon. Members have been assiduous in pursuing the matter with me and I have had several representations from them and their constituents.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised matters relating to development which went far wide of the narrow focus of the debate, which is restricted to permitted development rights. As he will know from his contact with my office this morning, I shall write to him and deal with the points that he has made which are not germane to this debate.
As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has made clear, he and his constituents are concerned about Railtrack's exercise of permitted development rights to stockpile ballast on a site to the west of Oxford. Oxfordshire county council has made a direction under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 to withdraw these rights. If approved, the effect of that would be to require Railtrack to submit a planning application for further development on the site. The direction has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for approval.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East that the concerns raised by local residents—including those related to the impact on the green belt, noise, dust and visual amenity—are being taken into account alongside the views expressed by Railtrack and Oxfordshire county council. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot say more because to do so might prejudice my right hon. Friend's consideration of the issues involved in the case. A decision will be made as soon as possible, as I have already said in answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon.
This is a complex issue and the Government office has today asked for further evidence from both Railtrack and the county council so that a properly informed decision can be made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision will be made solely on the merits of the case and will not be influenced by the fact that works have already been undertaken.
There are, however, a number of general points of principle arising from what the hon. Gentleman has said, to which I shall respond. Permitted development rights have been approved by the House and apply throughout England and Wales. They benefit a large number of bodies in the public and private sectors, including householders. It has been the policy of successive Governments that those rights should not be withdrawn locally without very good reason. Local planning authorities have been advised in circular 9/95 that, generally, permitted development rights should be withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances. The Government stand by that principle. It will rarely be justifiable to withdraw permitted development rights unless there is a real and specific threat to an interest of acknowledged importance.
The hon. Gentleman questioned why permitted development rights originally granted to a public body—British Rail—should continue to apply to private companies such as Railtrack. In general terms, the planning system is designed to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. The ownership of the particular body carrying out the development is not relevant.
The statutory obligations of bodies such as Railtrack necessitate essential development from time to time, just as they did when they were vested in its public sector predecessor, British Rail. It would be in nobody's interest to require the submission of a planning application every time development was proposed, no matter how small or insignificant. Local planning authorities would be inundated with planning applications, the efficiency of the statutory undertaker's operations would be needlessly compromised and the resultant costs would fall to the customer.
I doubt that hon. Members would want Railtrack to have to apply for planning permission every time it needed to carry out essential safety, maintenance or enhancement works on the rail network. To do so could at the very least impose serious delays and at worst impose unacceptable risks for rail customers.
That does not mean that Railtrack or any other statutory undertaker enjoying permitted development rights can do whatever it likes. For example, in the case of the exercise of development by statutory undertakers under class A of part 17 of the general permitted development order, the development has to be by the railway undertaker on its operational land and required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail. It cannot, for example, exploit this power to build an office block or a supermarket anywhere it likes alongside the railway.
As the case that the hon. Gentleman has in mind demonstrates, even where permitted development rights exist, the local planning authority can, with certain exceptions, seek to withdraw those rights by means of an article 4 direction.
Where there is a sound case for improvements to be made to the operation of permitted development rights, the Government will of course give serious consideration to any necessary amendments to the regime. An independent study, commissioned by the Department, into the use made by statutory undertakers of their permitted development rights involved consultation with local planning authorities, statutory undertakers and a wide range of other bodies with an interest in the environment


and heritage. It concluded that, by and large, the system of permitted development rights operates effectively, but it made recommendations for relatively minor amendments to the system, and those are being considered.
The hon. Gentleman asked why permitted development rights should be enjoyed in the green belt. As I said in my written answer to him on 9 November, one reason for withdrawing permitted development rights in a particular case might be the impact on the green belt. To remove those rights throughout the green belt for works involving development, however trivial, would be unjustified. Much of the railway network passes through the green belt and I doubt that hon. Members would want essential maintenance, safety and enhancement works to be delayed or prevented on those parts of the network because of a blanket disapplication of those rights and the consequent need to apply for planning permission.
The hon. Gentleman asked also why the local planning authority may be liable for compensation where permitted development rights are withdrawn. I shall elaborate on the reply that I gave him on 9 November. Since permitted development rights should not be withdrawn save in exceptional circumstances it follows that the body deprived of the rights that would normally be enjoyed should be entitled to compensation.
In the specific case of a statutory undertaker, compensation is payable only following the withdrawal of permitted development rights where, under section 266 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the statutory undertaker subsequently applies for planning permission and the Secretary of State refuses permission or imposes conditions. Under section 280 of the Act, the general principle of assessment is that the claimant is entitled to compensation, including for all expenditure reasonably incurred in carrying out any acquisition or works made necessary by the proceeding giving rise to compensation and to loss of profits.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon for giving us the opportunity to consider those complex issues. I reassure him that they are receiving serious consideration in our Department and a decision will be made as soon as possible, when we have received the additional information that we have requested, and exclusively on the merits of the case.

Brown-field Sites (Teesside)

Dr. Ashok Kumar: I am grateful for the privilege of having this debate, in which I want to bring to the attention of the House the need to address issues affecting the ability to achieve brown-field land regeneration. Some of the points and suggestions that I shall make were raised recently in an excellent seminar organised by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology at the Institution of Civil Engineers.
I represent a Teesside constituency in one of the largest industrial areas in the UK. I shall concentrate on issues that are central to the development needs of Teesside, but which are applicable to other industrial areas in the country. I shall begin by making historical remarks, and then consider the current issues on Teesside and suggest practical Government measures that could help our local economy.
The core industries of Teesside are of long standing. Iron making from the 1850s onwards made way for steel making and heavy engineering in the latter part of the 19th century. That industry was complemented by the growth of salt extraction, and heavy organic and non-organic chemicals at the beginning of this century. Those industries were both land hungry and polluting. They were symbols of what the social historian Lord Asa Briggs called the "carboniferous capitalism" of the Victorian age.
Teesside steel was made from iron mined in the nearby Eston hills and was smelted in furnaces fuelled by coal from the nearby Durham coalfields. At that time, pollution was seen as a symbol of prosperity. When Prince Albert came to Middlesbrough, he was told that he would see "many smoking chimneys" and that that was for the general good because smoking chimneys meant business and employment. Indeed, those smoking stacks dominated Teesside's industrial heartland until comparatively recently.
Technological and locational changes in industry, combined with the rising costs of energy and the decrease in customer demand as the recession of the 1980s bit, meant that many sites were abandoned by industry. The retreat of industry left a great legacy of polluted land, dereliction and visual decay.
Making full use of Government funding, the councils of the day and other regional bodies began the slow and complex job of making good the polluted land and bringing it back into productive use. This work was complemented by the creation of the Teesside development corporation in the late 1980s.
As the Minister knows only too well, I have often criticised the TDC and the autocratic and secretive way in which it conducted its affairs. However, its record in derelict land clearance and remediation has been good. At a cost of some £400 million, it cleared up to 500 hectares of derelict land in its lifetime and brought them back into productive use. Today, the visual outlook of much of Teesside has been changed for the better, as new leisure developments, new offices, new extensions for higher education and new houses have been built on former brown-field land.
The River Tees, once a waterway that ran between the high walls of factories and warehouses, has in many places once again come into the public domain.


Teesside is a greener, cleaner place, but there is still a lot to do. There are still more than 800 hectares of derelict land fronting the River Tees, and there are still vast areas of land that have been levelled by their industrial owners, but no beneficial after-use has been properly considered.
There are still large riverside areas which could again become valuable industrial assets for Teesside, but which are effectively left sterile by the seeming disinterest of the landowners. Such land is an underused asset in an area which, as well as being an ideal location for new capital-intensive industry, is a hub in bulk logistics.
The port of Teesside and Hartlepool is one of the top three ports in the United Kingdom in terms of tonnage handled, and is probably the nation's number one export-import facility for chemicals and bulk steel. There is a regional need to build on these strengths. I have an ambition to see the development of what could be a UK Euro-port.
I have been impressed by what I have seen and heard of port-related intermodal development centres. These are developed by port authorities on mainland Europe in, for example, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Wilhelmshaven. I would argue strongly for such a centre in Teesside—a centre where all forms of surface distribution and the infrastructure to service it, as well as safe storage, warehousing and Customs and Excise facilities, could be housed on a single secure large site. It would be a great project, and there is more than enough derelict land near the existing port terminals to allow it to go ahead.
Despite the contractions in and shocks to the industrial heart of Teesside in the 1980s, the area is still one of the heartlands of heavy manufacturing industry. The development agencies on Teesside, especially the highly successful Tees Valley development company, tell me that there is still a steady stream of inquiries from potential investors. These potential investors are anxious to build on the skills, talents and abilities of the people of Teesside. That is our strength.
An area once associated indelibly with one companyICI—now has manufacturing plants owned and operated by some of the world's largest corporations, such as Du Pont, BASF, Union Carbide, Phillips Petroleum, Amoco and Enron. For many of them, their Teesside operations represent their largest stake in UK manufacturing. They are companies with international reach and vision. They are powered by global concerns and strategies, and they are shaping our modern world. There is, I would argue, a UK imperative to ensure that their presence in this country is cemented, and that they become key players in the building of the UK's national capability in chemicals. To underpin that, we need a huge portfolio of available sites on Teesside. The essential problem is that in order to do that quickly and effectively, we need more powers and more resources.
I greatly welcome the setting up of the new regional development agency for the north-east. This will go a long way to meeting the development needs of the northern region and Teesside, but the RDA is only part of the answer. It is not the complete solution to bringing vacant sites back to life. More powers need to be devolved from central Government in order to assemble land and to encourage—if necessary, to push—landowners into the development process.
We must look afresh at and review the practice of compulsory purchase arrangements and at possible fiscal measures. The compulsory purchase order process is long

winded. A recent research paper by Drivers Jonas showed that a CPO can often take up to two years to implement, with another two years to settle compensation. A development agency or local authority with a good inward investment prospect anxious to move on to a site cannot afford to wait that long.
I have heard that inflated values are often agreed for land to ensure speedy possession, which involves buyers paying through the nose for land that is often contaminated and which requires new accesses and services. If that does not happen, a job-creating project could go elsewhere.
The CPO process is also complicated. Again, Drivers Jonas tells us that there are no fewer than seven principal Acts, as well as a host of circulars and reams of case law, which have a bearing on the CPO process. There is a cast-iron case for some form of consolidation so that people know where they stand.
I referred to the work of the Teesside development corporation. One of the powers of that body, as of all the other urban development corporations, was the power of acquisition for
the overall regeneration of the area.
That phrase was enshrined in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which gave special consideration and powers to the UDCs. They did not have to demonstrate any specific use for the land, and did not have to jump through all the hoops that local authorities and existing development agencies now have to negotiate. Why not reinstate that power for these bodies? I am sure that it could be done simply, either through a circular from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or by adding a single clause in any general local government or planning Bill.
The other thing that the Government can do is to state forcefully that the scales are to be tilted in favour of active vacant brown-field land development. They should stress through a new planning policy guidance circular that there will be an active presumption in favour of the compulsory purchase of land that is substantially vacant or derelict. That needs to be backed by strong Government encouragement to large institutional landowners on Teesside, such as British Steel, the port authority and Railtrack, actively to review their land portfolio and market it actively.
I should like to make one final suggestion, which could be considered controversial, but which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will study seriously. There has been much talk of a green-field levy to encourage developers to make greater use of brown-field land. That is one side of the coin, but we must look at the other side too. I would argue that there should be some fiscal stick to partner the carrot of a green-field levy. Why not consider a brown-field levy—say a percentage of the capital value of any site that has remained unused for a fixed time, and where there is no indication of any material progress towards a defined end use? I do not mind what time is fixed; that could be decided later.
Proceeds from such a levy could be ring-fenced, just as the landfill tax is used to fund environmental improvements. The levy could help towards remediation work on brown-field sites where active disposal and marketing are under way. It would be a spur to owners and provide financial assistance to central—and local—Government, who must fund the process. My suggestions could, of course, be applied nationally.
Teesside's derelict land problem must be addressed. The suggestions would, if examined, refined and adopted, have a great impact on its ability to enter the new millennium as a strong, confident manufacturing and trading region. I look forward to an encouraging response from my hon. Friend the Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on his helpful and perceptive contribution to this very important and continuing debate on brown-field land regeneration. He spoke not only in general, but in particular, and concentrated most of his arguments on Teesside, which he represents.
I am aware that English Partnerships, in consultation with local authorities and major landowners on Teesside, has decided that a strategic view of regeneration needs to be taken towards the under-used and derelict land along the Tees. That has resulted in several comprehensive studies in order to provide a programme of action to achieve regeneration, ranging from environmental improvements to providing employment opportunities for the region. My hon. Friend is right to point out that, despite the progress in the past decade in derelict land clearance and the return of sites to productive use, there is still much to do.
When my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched our policy document "Planning for the Communities of the Future", he made it clear that one of our most testing challenges as we approach the millennium is how to create a more sustainable environment and more sustainable communities. In so doing, we must ensure that the best use is made of the many thousands of previously developed—brown-field—sites.
An urban task force was established in April, under the chairmanship of Lord Rogers of Riverside, to identify strategies that will encourage the regeneration of our towns and cities through the redevelopment of previously used land. One of its responsibilities is to look at practical means of ensuring the delivery of development on brown-field sites. It will consider, for example, whether any improvements should be made to the system of public land acquisition. It will examine whether there is a strong enough presumption in favour of acquisition, and whether the process could be simplified. It will address other mechanisms for achieving the goal of assembled land, including lessons from abroad.
The urban task force will also be looking at the possibility of speeding up site preparation by, for example, improved measures for the remediation of contaminated land, and the potential use of fiscal measures and the removal of financial disincentives. Lord Rogers's urban task force will produce its report in the spring.
We are also assembling data for the first stage of the national land-use database, which will provide crucial data on the amount of previously developed land in England. That is a vital step in the process of maximizing

the redevelopment of sites. We are, of course, actively working on the new planning policy guidance notePPG3—on housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East discussed the mechanism of compulsory purchase and, like many others who wish to encourage urban regeneration and the provision of better housing, highlighted perceived deficiencies in the system. It is often said that the way in which the compulsory system operates is not the equal of 21st century conditions. Indeed, last year the interdepartmental working group on blight concluded, among other things, that compulsory purchase and blight are inseparable bedfellows.
I am told that local authorities that wish to clear life-expired housing stock are frustrated that their powers seem insufficient to the task; or that the compensation code seems to reward delinquent landlords; or that people in negative equity are put in an impossible position if their properties are compulsorily acquired. In other circumstances, such as those described by my hon. Friend, authorities report that they have inadequate powers to acquire sites for regeneration. Several authoritative reports have demonstrated that the system can be very slow.
In the face of such overwhelming evidence of a reported mismatch between the tasks that we expect local authorities to perform and the tools given to them to enable them so to do, it was plainly essential that we should take the system to pieces—so to speak—and subject it to detailed scrutiny. Therefore, in June my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning announced the institution of a fundamental review of compulsory purchase and compensation. The review—the interim report of which we are considering—is indisputably the most thorough examination of this complex law for a generation.
The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear his determination that policy making should be a far more inclusive process. For that reason, and in recognition of the magnitude of the task, we have secured an eminent advisory group to assist us in the review. With top lawyers, planners, surveyors, academics, representatives of local authorities, the farming community and other property interests represented on the group, we can be confident that no stone will be left unturned and no argument left unvoiced. If there is an answer to the problems with which we are apparently faced, I have no doubt that the group will find it.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not divert into a paragraph-by-paragraph consideration of the interim report. It is detailed and exhaustive, and warrants close consideration before publication. However, I am equally sure that he will be interested—I hope encouraged—by some of the group's earliest findings. They were sufficiently important, and advocated by the group with sufficient confidence, for us to take its advice and act without waiting for it to submit its interim report.
Probably the most interesting of the early conclusions was that the lack of local authorities' use of compulsory purchase powers, or their lack of success in deploying them, was less a question of sufficiency of powers and more one of authorities' lack of expertise in and understanding of such powers. That is hardly surprising because if one does not use a skill, one loses it.
As the group rightly says, it would be nonsense if we were to allow so basic an impediment to efficiency, effectiveness and fairness as a lack of expertise in operating the system to persist. It has therefore recommended that a comprehensive CPO manual, combining procedural guidance and best-practice advice, should be drafted, to which we have already committed substantial funds. In case anyone should dismiss the idea of a guidance manual as trivial, I should say that initial responses from authorities and professionals have been uniformly enthusiastic. "We could have done with this years ago" was the opinion of one local authority planning officer—from a highly CPO-proficient authority.
Despite the group's conclusion that the erosion of the skills base was a significant factor in the low use made by authorities of their CPO powers, it nevertheless considered very carefully the issues that my hon. Friend has set out so succinctly. In particular, the group examined the proposition that local authorities could not achieve their regeneration objectives because they did not have the powers to do so.
It is true that urban development corporation powers are different from local authority powers, just as it is true that UDCs and local authorities are distinct creatures in statute. However, different powers do not mean less effective or less appropriate powers. As constitutional lawyers will remind us, powers are closely related to statutory functions: UDCs had very precise statutory functions, and powers were given to each UDC only after Parliament had been assured that a specific, geographically circumscribed need had been demonstrated.
As regards local authorities, Parliament does not, cannot and should not interest itself in the detail of individual schemes: those are matters for discussion, resolution and accountability at local level. Given that the nature of the two types of body is different, their powers are different, too, although equally appropriate and equally adequate.
I shall give two examples. In Leicester, the successful delivery of its city challenge regeneration strategy necessitated the acquisition of several acres of land which was under-utilised or, in the context of the overall scheme of regeneration, inappropriately utilised. The city council deployed the powers available to it under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and acquired the land. With good title to the land and vacant possession, the council attracted sufficient interest from developers to undertake a remarkable transformation of the area, in terms of both economics and aesthetics. More recently, a compulsory purchase order, using the same power, was successfully used by the then Rochester city council for the regeneration of part of its riverside area.
I urge my hon. Friend and his colleagues on Teesside metropolitan borough council to examine, with their professional advisers, those cases of the successful use

of existing compulsory purchase powers for regeneration-linked purposes, to see whether the perceived impediments to their use are, in fact, real. If my hon. Friend and his colleagues remain convinced of the mismatch between task and tool, I will ask the working group to visit Teesside to explore with him and his colleagues why that may be so and what may need to be done to rectify matters.
I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in the role of ports in local economic regeneration. That is a key theme of our integrated transport strategy, and will be developed in a ports policy paper on which we hope to consult shortly.
I applaud the expansion that has taken place at the port of Tees and Hartlepool, which was undertaken by the port authority and involved studying market potential, making commercial judgments and backing those judgments with development plans. I would expect any further expansion at the port to follow the same process.
It is for the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to consider what future direction it wishes to take. Some ports might expand by offering added-value facilities, potentially improving logistical efficiency. In other cases or trades, ports may do better to focus on providing a seamless link between supplier and customer. Those are matters for commercial decision by the port authority.
Finally, my hon. Friend came up with what he called a controversial—I prefer to call it interesting—suggestion of a brown-field levy, as an incentive for people holding previously developed sites to develop them. That would encourage people who are just sitting on land to develop it or release it for others to develop. He will, of course, understand that tax issues are a matter for our right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
We are currently considering some of the options for taxes that would give the right signals to developers. If my hon Friend has any further details of his proposal for a brown-field tax, I would be happy to look at it.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

DOUBLE TAXATION

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ireland) Order 1998 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Departmental Annual Report

Mr. Michael Jack: In what ways she proposes to change the format of her Department's annual report to reflect the effect of conflict on the problems of less-developed countries; and when she plans to publish it. [62742]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Preventing and reducing conflict, and responding to emergency and humanitarian needs, are important aspects of our Department's work. There will be a substantial section dealing with those issues in this year's departmental report, which will be published in the spring.

Mr. Jack: I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed that he will do rather better than this year's report, where only five out of 201 paragraphs deal with the subject of conflict. The Secretary of State, in the House and outside, has rightly drawn the public's attention to the damage that conflict can do to the effectiveness of our overseas aid programme. Will the Minister consider heading up the title "An Audit of Conflict" and use it effectively as an audit to deal with the victims—who are in many cases the subject of human rights difficulties—so that we may learn more about those problems, within nations and outside?

Mr. Foulkes: I understand why the right hon. Gentleman was not fully satisfied with the format of the first report, because we followed the pattern used by the previous Government. We are able to improve and develop on that and, in doing so, we will certainly take account of his helpful suggestion.

Nepal

Mr. Robin Corbett: What plans she has to offer assistance to Nepal. [62743]

Helen Jones: If she will make a statement on her recent visit to Nepal. [62747]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We have recently published a new country strategy paper and I also visited Nepal in November. Our conclusion is that development efforts in Nepal over the past 30 years have largely failed the people of Nepal. There has been some progress, but poverty is still deep and widespread, and social indicators are some of the worst in the world. We can and must do better.
We believe that donors must co-ordinate their efforts around Government-led strategies to reduce poverty. The Government need to tackle deep-rooted problems of corruption and patronage, increase the efficiency of Government systems and improve the quality of basic

services, particularly for poor people. We are prepared to increase our efforts and spending in Nepal, but only if there is stronger commitment to poverty reduction in Nepal.

Mr. Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which showed that there is still widespread poverty and deprivation in Nepal. As a result of her visit, can she say by how much she plans to increase resources and by what means she hopes to change the attitude of the authorities?

Clare Short: Nepal is an incredibly beautiful but desperately poor country, and its people deserve better. For many years, and in very high proportions, it has been a major recipient of overseas development aid from across the world, and the impact should have been greater in reducing poverty and improving the conditions of the people.
We have analysed the failures of the past and set down a strategy for doing better. We will put a dedicated office into Nepal, but we will not increase the spend unless we can spend more effectively. We have said to the Government that we will increase our spend if we can work more effectively together, but we must reform the system, deal with corruption and get more effective government, otherwise there is no point in big flows of aid.

Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for what she has said so far, but what steps is her Department taking to promote better governance in Nepal, and to help bring about the fundamental changes that are necessary if poverty is to be eradicated in that country?

Clare Short: There was a great struggle in Nepal to obtain democracy, and the people united proudly and won it. There is a widespread sense of disappointment there that democracy has not lead to better governance, and there is rising anger about corruption. For example, there is great interference in the civil service and in political appointments, and therefore not the efficiency in Government systems that is required. I have had frank discussions with the Government of Nepal, all the parties and some of the leading organisations in civil society. There is a lot of disgruntlement and we need to put that into a positive agenda for change. There is also a Maoist insurgency because of the anger of the people, and clearly that will not lead Nepal anywhere. We alone cannot deliver improvements, but we will work hard if there is any will in Nepal to do so.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I welcome what the Secretary of State has just said about Nepal, but now that she has had a few days for thoughtful reflection after her visit to the far east, does she accept that it was an error of judgment on her part to refuse to promote the interests of British companies on that visit?

Clare Short: No, I absolutely do not accept that. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, having had some time for reflection on the Conservative party's record of having misused aid to promote and assist British exports, of having been taken to the courts and found to have behaved illegally, should be standing there, in the job that he has, suggesting that aid should be linked to the promotion of individual contracts. That is always wrong. What we do


do all over the world is help to promote the conditions that will generate the economic growth that will reduce poverty. We are working increasingly strongly with major British businesses who want us to do that job and consider that the selling of individual contracts is a job for them or those Departments that exist to do that job.

Mr. Streeter: No one is talking about aid for trade. Everyone accepts that the Secretary of State's primary role on her visits abroad is to promote development and human rights. Does she not realise that all of us, whether Ministers, shadow Ministers or Back Benchers, all of whose salaries are paid for by the British taxpayer, have an intrinsic obligation, when we travel abroad to Nepal, China or anywhere else, to do our best to promote British interests? Will she give the House an assurance that, on her next visit abroad, she will bother to promote the interests of British companies and British jobs?

Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has an old-fashioned attitude to what Ministers should do to assist British business. If the hon. Gentleman bothered to consult British business—major parts of British business are, in increasing numbers, making contact with my Department—he would know that it explicitly asks us—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would stop heckling, I could answer his question. British business explicitly asks us to promote more stability, development, the enforcement of contracts and proper regulation so that business can trade and thrive. That is what they want of us. To go to a poor country and say, "Here we are assisting with improvements in education for the poorest children", or, in the case of China, "Here we are assisting with state-owned enterprises beginning to market, so you need skills in accountancy, modern banking, or whatever, and by the way, would you have X contract rather than Y", is a disreputable linkage. It does not promote Britain's interests for Ministers with responsibility for international development who are promoting development world wide to promote individual contracts. That is wrong.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I understand that my right hon. Friend was able to raise repeatedly the issue of good governance during the course of her successful visit, which was well reported in the local press in Nepal, as my right hon. Friend knows. Has my right hon. Friend anything to report on the request by the Speaker of the Nepalese Parliament for help through not only the British agencies, but the international agency network for a research facility to be set up to aid Nepalese Members of Parliament? That would be a major contribution to good governance, certainly in the Nepalese Parliament.

Clare Short: I am aware of my hon. Friend's visit to Nepal and of his enthusiasm for the proposal, about which he has written to me. I also met in Nepal people who had met him and who remember very well his visit there. The Government are extremely keen to support developments that improve governance and the Parliament's effectiveness. However, throwing money at things is not always the right way of achieving change. There has to be a real, committed will to make change. I had meetings with the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and other big donors, and we shall get behind such proposals if they are realistic. We shall not just throw money around.

Street Children Projects

Mr. Ian Bruce: What assistance her Department has been able to give to street children projects affected by Hurricane Mitch. [62744]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The hon. Gentleman's concern for the problem of street children is well known, as is his support for Casa Alianza, to which he referred during the Government's statement on the effects of Hurricane Mitch. Last month, a team of our experts visited Honduras and Nicaragua to assess the need for further relief. Our experts met representatives of Casa Alianza and discussed proposals for targeting street children as part of the relief effort. The next phase of our emergency assistance will, on our team's recommendation, focus on reconstructing basic infrastructure in transport, health and sanitation. I should be glad to discuss further with the hon. Gentleman proposals for work with street children.

Mr. Bruce: I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for their personal concern about the issue. However, I am sad to report that Casa Alianza was not very happy about its meeting with the team of experts, as it felt that the team had pre-decided the amounts to be spent. I should very much welcome a meeting with the Minister to consider specific projects that the Government could fund.

Mr. Foulkes: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the meeting lasted 45 minutes. However, the team had also to consider other representations—from Governments, from non-governmental organisations and from the other international organisations working there. As 60 per cent. of roads and bridges, 70 per cent. of hospitals and 80 per cent. of water distribution networks in the area have been destroyed, I am sure that he will understand why the team thought that, currently, reconstructing that infrastructure should be the top priority.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the British public have been responding generously to the disasters emergency appeal. Is he able to estimate, either today or at an early date, how much our own Government have contributed to overcome the disaster, and how much has come from the British public in answer to the appeals?

Mr. Foulkes: I am not able to say how much has been given by the British public. However, the Government have given £4 million for emergency relief and reconstruction, and have pledged £10 million for the debt relief trust fund that we have proposed establishing. We have also suggested improvements in the debt relief timetable for highly indebted poor countries. When I met the five central American ambassadors to discuss those matters, they were very satisfied with the speed and generosity of the British Government's response.

Zimbabwe

Mr. Andrew Hunter: If she will make a statement on UK bilateral and multilateral aid to Zimbabwe. [62745]

Mr. Gerald Howarth: If she will make a statement on the levels of European Union aid to Zimbabwe. [62748]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If she will make a statement on the British aid programme in Zimbabwe. [627501]

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement about aid to Zimbabwe. [62752]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): In November 1996, the European Community made £54 million available to the Government of Zimbabwe for poverty alleviation. No further commitments have been made by the European Commission since that date. Britain has a range of small programmes focused on benefits for the poor, costing about £10 million, which were almost all established under the previous Administration, and a £12 million aid and trade provision project with Land Rover, the commitment to which also was made by the previous Administration. Since our Government were formed, we have made it clear that land reform is desirable and justified in Zimbabwe, but that we shall support only land reform that is designed to help poor farmers, that is transparent and that complies with Zimbabwean law. Unfortunately, none of the proposals meets those requirements.

Mr. Hunter: I welcome that answer. However, will the right hon. Lady consider that we now know that President Mugabe presided over genocide in Matabeleland; over torture of political prisoners, some of whom were British; and over other civil rights abuses? Would it not be consistent with the Government's handling of the Pinochet affair and with their ethical foreign policy to halt all aid to Zimbabwe and to arrest Mugabe when he next visits the United Kingdom?

Clare Short: The temptation always—it happened after the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan—to make a country's poor pay the price of their Government's misbehaviour is understandable but wrong. If aid projects are benefiting poor people who are often also the victims of bad governance, it would be wrong that they should have to pay a double price by our cutting help because we are displeased with their Government. We should always review when we have problems with a Government.
We are all worried about the situation in Zimbabwe, but President Mugabe is the elected head of state, not a military dictator. If he or any other leader is in breach of the law and there is a legal process and an application to the British courts, it will be properly considered.

Mr. Howarth: We have just heard the most appalling example of hypocrisy from the Secretary of State.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Madam Speaker: Order. I will deal with this. I know that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Howarth: I withdraw the suggestion that the Secretary of State was intentionally hypocritical. She has

spelled out a disgraceful policy by the British Government. She knows how corrupt and incompetent Mugabe is and the crimes with which he has been charged. Does she accept that, in saying that she is prepared to grant aid to Zimbabwe to bring about land reform, she is playing into the hands of a man who will dispossess those farmers who contribute no less than 40 per cent. of the country's foreign exchange earnings? They are the engine of what economic activity exists in that country.

Clare Short: I do not know whether one is allowed to say that an hon. Gentleman is being rude and ignorant and has not listened to the answer but, if that is permitted, that is my response. I said to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that when a Government engage in behaviour that worries us greatly and of which we do not approve, it is not right to hurt the poor people of that country, who are usually also the victims of bad governance. That is a serious proposition. If the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) cannot understand it, I shall send him something in big letters with short sentences that he might be able to read.
My second point, of which the hon. Gentleman is clearly also unaware, is that the farmers organisations of Zimbabwe favour land redistribution. The large white farmers agree that the land is badly distributed and that there should be properly organised, transparent arrangements that comply with Zimbabwean law to increase the amount of land for small farmers. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is getting so angry on their behalf; he is misinformed about their views.

Mr. Winterton: The right hon. Lady is right to say that land reform and the redistribution of some farms is essential for progress and success in Zimbabwe. I have just been there with colleagues from both sides of the House as a member of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. I support the right hon. Lady's policy of not giving aid to Zimbabwe for land reform unless the proposals put forward by Mr. Mugabe and his Government are acceptable to all the donors. Does she accept that there is a need for aid to Zimbabwe to help the poor? I have visited Porta farm, which has benefited from aid from this country. Will she consider funding specific hygiene, sanitation and education projects that would be a positive help to the poor of Zimbabwe, which is a wonderful country that needs a bit of help?

Clare Short: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. Zimbabwe is a naturally rich country with very able people, high levels of education and good land. It should be progressing well and it is a tragedy that it is in such trouble. One adult in four in Zimbabwe is infected with HIV, but there is no Government programme to deal with it. The life expectancy of Zimbabweans has gone down by 20 years because of HIV. I agree that there are serious needs. The situation is worrying and the Zimbabwean Government are giving a poor lead. We are reviewing our overall relationship with Zimbabwe. If we cannot work with the Government, we can achieve less in the country, but we shall always do what we can to assist


the poor, who are often the victims of bad Governments, as the hon. Gentleman understands, although some of his hon. Friends appear not to.

Mr. Swayne: Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that future projects will be judged against the criteria that they cannot in any way be used to prolong the life of a corrupt and incompetent regime?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman also appears to have difficulty with his hearing. I thought that I had made it clear in my original answer that our existing commitments were put in place by the previous Administration. Nevertheless, they largely benefit the poor. I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that future proposals which do not benefit the poor will not be approved. It is a delicate problem when very poor and oppressed people live under a Government who do not put their interests first. In those circumstances, we always try not to strengthen a bad Government, but to look after the interests of the poor. It is a complex matter, but we struggle to do that across the world.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Having led the CPA delegation to Zimbabwe in September, may I refer my right hon. Friend to the problem of land reform, which is creating difficulties for the Government of Zimbabwe? If they take land from large landowners and do not have the cash to pay compensation, they are accused of seizing the land. Therefore, they are in a cleft stick. As my right hon. Friend said, the Government of Zimbabwe believe that land redistribution is essential but, if they take the land without providing compensation, they face difficulties.

Clare Short: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend—he led the delegation well and we have discussed the matter previously—but I do not agree that the Government of Zimbabwe are in a cleft stick. Legislation passed since independence requires compensation to be provided in respect of land redistribution. Our position and that of the European Commission and many other donors is that there is a strong case for land redistribution and assistance will be available if it is transparent, properly organised and benefits the poor by providing proper water systems and schools for their children. A serious programme of land reform that would benefit poor farmers in Zimbabwe would get support from the rest of the world community and we are waiting to provide support to a proper programme that fulfils those conditions.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Can my right hon. Friend give us an idea of the projects that will be supported by the £22 million provision that has been made for Zimbabwe? She mentioned the problems of HIV. I know that there are very active Marie Stopes family planning clinics tackling HIV and other problems in that country, which desperately need assistance.

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One in four adults in Zimbabwe has the virus and Zimbabwean people have lost 20 years of life expectancy. It is an enormous crisis and there has been no attempt by the Government of Zimbabwe to follow the lead of Uganda, where there has been a marked decline of incidence of HIV. In Tanzania, we headed research showing that the

early treatment of sexually transmitted diseases massively slows the spread of HIV. The commitments that I read out include some £10 million on sexual health. We want to do more, but we need a lead from the Government of Zimbabwe and from major figures there to deal with this terrible crisis.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the Secretary of State agree that some very good black Zimbabwean farmers are perfectly capable of cultivating the land to the highest possible standards, and that, therefore, redistribution to them would not reduce the agricultural productivity that is vital to the economic future of that country? However, is it not also perfectly possible to redistribute land to good black farmers without confiscating it from its present owners?

Clare Short: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. That is also the view of the farmers' associations of Zimbabwe. Most of those who own large farms agree that there is an overwhelming case for redistribution and have made detailed technical proposals about how it should be done. Of course, redistribution has to comply with Zimbabwean law, which requires that the land must be acquired legally and compensation must be paid. That is current legislation there. Everyone agrees that, if it were done properly, it could be beneficial to Zimbabwe.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that she is reviewing the UK's relationship with Zimbabwe, and not before time. May I suggest that it is irrelevant whether the commitments were made under the last Government, as they are being carried out by the present Government? How can she justify the UK paying some $20 million a year in aid to Zimbabwe when the President is spending £250,000 a day on a war in the Congo? He must think that Christmas has come early.
Will the Secretary of State now seriously consider transferring aid, perhaps to neighbouring Mozambique, which is both poorer and more democratic than Zimbabwe? The Mozambican Government would welcome support for cleaning up the debris of war, and such support would send a firm signal to developing countries that, when conditions for aid are broken, donors—particularly the United Kingdom—are ready to transfer funds to countries that abide by the rule of law.

Clare Short: Well, another Conservative Member with a hearing problem—perhaps the hon. Lady wrote her question before she heard any of the previous exchanges. I have made it clear—it is the view of anyone with any principles who considers aid and development—that poor people should not be punished for living under Governments who do not govern them well. I hope that she understands that clear principle.
We agree that the war in the Congo and Zimbabwe's role in it are deeply worrying. We are doing all in our power to secure a ceasefire and a settlement because of the consequences of the war for Zimbabwe and a number of other countries in central Africa. I also agree that things in Mozambique are going well. The country has had all the difficulties that history could throw at it, but it has recovered from civil war and has a good Government. We have considerably increased our programme there.
I wish Conservative Members would bother to find out the facts. I have not announced a review today. Since we took power, the Government have made absolutely clear to the Government of Zimbabwe our position on land. The hon. Lady and the shadow Foreign Secretary pontificate about aid on the radio, but cannot even be bothered to find out what the situation is. The British Government are taking a principled position.

Former Republic of Yugoslavia

Dr. Norman A. Godman: When she last met her colleagues from other member states of the European Union, to discuss the provision of funding for human and civil rights programmes in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. [62746]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The Secretary of State regularly meets her colleagues to discuss this and other matters. In the former Republic of Yugoslavia we are, both directly and through the European Union, supporting work in human rights, helping to develop independent media, promoting peace and supporting the right of refugees to return home.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful for that answer. My hon. Friend will surely agree that a concern for human and civil rights should inform and influence all decisions on aid. Does he agree that, if the benighted region of Kosovo is ever to be given autonomy, the civil and human rights of the minority community will have to be honoured?

Mr. Foulkes: I understand what my hon. Friend says. In Kosovo, we are funding the UNHCR so that it can open an office in Pristina and we are also helping the Red Cross to deal with the victims of the conflict. I hope that he agrees that that is a good contribution from our Department.

World Bank

Mr. Dennis Canavan: What recent discussions she has had with the World bank about the bank's role in international development; and if she will make a statement. [62749]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I frequently meet the president of the World bank and his officials. We have been working since May 1997 to increase the bank's focus on human development and poverty eradication. In particular, we are trying to persuade the bank to make the international poverty eradication targets the basis for its agreements with the Governments of developing countries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I submitted a joint memorandum to the recent annual meeting of the bank and the fund, stressing the need for the institutions to co-operate more and to take more account of human need in emergency situations.

Mr. Canavan: What response has my right hon. Friend received to the letter that she and the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted to the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Inter-American development bank? Were any specific measures suggested to reduce

the debt burdens of some of the countries that were worst hit by Hurricane Mitch? What is the World bank trust fund doing to help the hurricane's victims, particularly in Honduras and Nicaragua?

Clare Short: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, when the crisis hit, the World bank immediately recycled the money available to the region so that no money had to be spent paying debt while other long-term arrangements were put in place. The trust fund that we proposed, and to which we made available £10 million, is now at £100 million. A team of experts from the bank is meeting with experts from the Inter-American development bank to provide the resources for reconstruction and the rescheduling of debt. In addition, the Paris Club—which deals with export credit debt—has agreed a moratorium on payments for the next three years. The process is not complete, but there has been fast action to assist reconstruction and to make sure that those countries do not have to pay out money in debt repayment when they need to reconstruct.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that, according to the latest UN AIDS report, AIDS has now overtaken malaria as one of the biggest killers in the world. In many parts of the world, 25 per cent. of the work force are infected, and that is seriously affecting the economic development of those areas. What talks has the Secretary of State had with the World bank to support pharmaceutical companies which may be able to develop and carry forward an AIDS vaccine, which is really the only hope that the world has in terms of the disease?

Clare Short: The hon. Lady is right. Some 35 million people in the world are infected with the AIDS virus. Ten per cent. of all new infections are babies infected by their mothers, and most women infected have only ever had one sexual partner—their husband. Some 40 per cent. of infections are of young women. The epidemic is bad in Africa, but it is spreading across Asia, where we are at the beginning of an even worse epidemic.
An AIDS vaccine is possible and, hopefully, could be available within six years. However, it will not be brought to market for the strains that are prevalent in Africa and Asia without some intervention because the countries are so poor that they would be unable to pay for the vaccine. As the hon. Lady knows, we are talking to the World bank about arranging measures so that the science is taken forward and a product is brought to market.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I attended a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party


and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Mr. Chapman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the press reports today of the National Audit Office's view of the privatisation of Railtrack? The NAO found that the previous Tory Government, in their unseemly haste to dispose of that national asset, effectively lost £1.5 billion of public money—public money that could have paid for health, education and the care of the vulnerable. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in a perfect world, we might expect those who lost the money to repay it, but that, as the world is not in all things perfect, the least we can expect is an abject apology?

The Prime Minister: The £1.5 billion that was wasted as a result of the Conservatives' incompetence is a reminder of what they did while they were in government. Of course, they now wish to privatise the Post Office. I would say to the country that I do not believe that they should be put in charge of our public services again.

Mr. William Hague: In the light of the fact that Saddam Hussein is still failing to comply with UN resolutions on weapons of mass destruction, and bearing in mind the Prime Minister's assurance last month that nothing less than complete compliance was acceptable, may I assure the Prime Minister of the full support of the Opposition for the use of military action in the days ahead, provided that action has clear and achievable objectives?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his expression of support. The report by the chief inspector of UNSCOM lists in clear terms the obstacles placed in the way of the weapons inspectors—the delays, the deceit, the refusal to provide documents, the restriction on inspections. No one who reads that report can seriously doubt its conclusion that UNSCOM is unable to carry out its job properly. Indeed, the report states that there are greater restrictions now than previously.
I remind the House of the very, very clear assurance that was given on 14 November by the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, who said:
Iraq has decided clearly and unconditionally to co-operate fully with UNSCOM … and will allow the return of the inspectors to resume all their activities on an immediate, unconditional and unrestricted basis.
That promise is clearly now broken.

Mr. Hague: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts go out to the men and women of our armed forces who, thousands of miles away from their families this Christmas, may face the toughest of jobs in the weeks ahead. Does the Prime Minister agree that Saddam Hussein has now tested western resolve on too many occasions; that his determination to build weapons of mass destruction represents a continuing threat to the peace of the whole middle east as well as to the interests of the United Kingdom; and that, as Conservative Members have said before, it must now be a prime objective of western policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power?

The Prime Minister: It is the case, as I was saying, that the Butler report makes very clear the obstacles placed in the way of inspection.
I want to emphasise one other point to the House. I hope that we can make copies of that report available in the Library so that hon. Members can read it and digest the facts that it contains. The report details not merely the obstruction but the fact that it relates directly to documents, sites and personnel that would give a clue as to the whereabouts of the weapons of mass destruction and the capability to make them. It is not obstruction simply for the sake of it, but a plan of deceit to prevent those weapons of mass destruction from being located and destroyed. As we have said before, we believe that Saddam Hussein, if allowed to develop those weapons, poses a threat not only to his neighbourhood but to the whole world.

Ms Beverley Hughes: I think that it is clear that the people of Northern Ireland are less concerned with any single detail of the arrangements still under negotiation than with the fact that the agreement should hold fast. Will my right hon. Friend press that point as strongly as he can, so that the people of Northern Ireland can retain the agreement, as the best basis for peace, for this Christmas and all future Christmases?

The Prime Minister: We hope very much that agreement on the outstanding issues can be reached. I know that intensive negotiations are going on in Northern Ireland to try to bridge any remaining difficulties. On the issues concerning the north-south bodies, the Departments and the way in which the new Assembly will work, the differences between the parties are now very limited. I hope very much that the parties will bear in mind—I am sure that they will—my hon. Friend's plea, which I think would be echoed by everyone in the House and in Northern Ireland, that we should give this process, which is the only process that offers the chance of a stable future for Northern Ireland, every chance of working successfully.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Can the Prime Minister confirm the existence of a Treasury report that says that Britain could join a single currency within eight months of a Cabinet decision to call a referendum?

The Prime Minister: A whole series of reports are produced. That report is no more or less than any other. The decision on whether we join, and the process of joining, is a subject that we have set out on many occasions. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said recently that we would publish a draft national changeover plan in the first part of next year. That is the thing to wait for.

Mr. Beith: Has the Prime Minister reflected on the fact that, next time he answers Prime Minister's Questions in the House, the single currency will already be in operation and we will not be part of it? Whatever his real views—I am sure that he has some real views on the subject—he chooses to appear undecided, leaving business to make its preparations on the basis of guesswork and trying to read his mind. Would not a clear expression of confidence in Britain's future in the single currency and the single market be a much better Christmas present for the manufacturers, exporters and farmers on whom so many people's jobs depend?

The Prime Minister: It is important that we keep to the principles that we have outlined, because the decision


should be taken in the national economic interest. When those tests have been satisfied, we will be in a position to make the decision. That is the right way to set out the policy, it is the position we have adhered to throughout, and what manufacturing needs most is long-term stability. A decision on the euro cannot be taken on the basis of short-term problems, in manufacturing or elsewhere.

Mr. Andrew Reed: Despite the local difficulties in the football world in the past few days, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's bid for the 2006 world cup is still strong? Will he congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport on the excellent work that he is doing to promote that bid around the world? Will he put in his diary for 2006 a date to present the trophy to a mid-20s Michael Owen as captain of a winning England side?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to give my support and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport on all the excellent work that he does. As for our bid for 2006, we believe that it is a very strong one. If the conditions can be satisfied, there may be a bid from Africa, but if there is to be a bid from this part of the world, the British bid is by far the strongest. We will carry on fighting the case for it.

Mr. John Bercow:: For saying that if we ditch the pound and join the euro, that is the end of Britain as an independent country, would the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) be described by the Prime Minister as a lunatic or as a headbanger?

The Prime Minister: No. I think I would reserve the term "headbanger" for others not located too far from the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me such immediate and visible proof. I remind him that the policy of his party is not to rule out the euro for ever—I think—or has it changed today? The policy that we have set out, basing the decision on the national economic interest, is surely the sensible way and that is the position that we will adhere to.

Mr. Tony Benn: On Iraq, is my right hon. Friend aware that, although there is overwhelming support in the United Nations for policies to bring about conformity with UN resolutions, if Britain and America bomb Iraq it will be contrary to the charter of the United Nations which requires the unanimity of the five permanent members; it will be illegal in international law; it will cause the death of many innocent people, and 200,000 Iraqis were killed in the Gulf war, leaving Saddam stronger; and it will inflame the middle east? Why does my right hon. Friend do everything that he is told to do by President Clinton, instead of taking an independent view in support of the charter, which has always been central to the policy of the party that he leads?

The Prime Minister: Such action would not be unlawful at all, for this reason. I take it as agreed between my right hon. Friend and me that the regime of Saddam Hussein must be prevented from building those weapons of mass destruction.
If we are agreed on that, the question is how. It can be done by Saddam Hussein complying with the agreements that he has entered into, or we have to look for other ways to enforce his agreement. The Gulf war ceasefire depended on the fulfilment of obligations that Iraq accepted at the time, including those relating to weapons of mass destruction.
Successive Security Council resolutions have confirmed the requirement for Iraq to fulfil those obligations. When in February we made our first attempt, through the memorandum of understanding between Iraq and Kofi Annan, the Security Council said that any breach by Iraq of its obligations under the memorandum of understanding would result in the "severest consequences". The Council has condemned Iraq's decisions to end co-operation again and again. On 14 November, we gave Iraq a further chance to come back into compliance. Given Iraq's manifest failure to co-operate in the past month, I am satisfied that, if we should choose to use force, we have the necessary legal authority to do so.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will visit Brixham in order to take a sea voyage on a beam trawler.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Steen: Is the Prime Minister saying that he would prefer not to witness the disastrous effect and the failure of his conservation policy? Once caught, 45 per cent. of the catch is taken on board, sorted and thrown back into the sea. Millions of prime fish are thrown back every day, dead. Does the Prime Minister feel that that policy is sensible, or is it abhorrent, environmentally damaging and a policy from which he would like to dissociate himself?

The Prime Minister: Unequivocally, I think that the present policy needs changing. Of course it does. However, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it cannot seriously be thought that what he said has begun only now. It has been building up over a long period as a result of commitments entered into by the previous Government rather than the current one. Having said that, I agree that the current level of discarding is far too high and a terrible waste. We are working to reduce it with a range of measures, including reducing levels of fishing and making changes to technical rules on fishing gear. We shall argue against excessively large cuts in quota, although some cuts are necessary to conserve stocks for the future. We are committed to improving the common fisheries policy, but I do not believe that the alternative of leaving the policy altogether is seriously sustainable. We must be honest: changes are necessary, but we shall have to achieve them within the CFP.

Engagements

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Prime Minister had a briefing this morning on newly published labour market statistics showing detailed figures for unemployment? Does he know that for 18 to 24-year-olds—about whom he is so concerned—the number in employment has gone down during the


relevant quarter? Does he know that the number of long-term unemployed aged between 18 and 24 has gone up by 25 per cent. after six months of the new deal? What will he do about the new deal, which is turning out to be a busted flush?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. For a start, there has been a cut in unemployment levels among people within the new deal category who are aged 18 to 24 of more than 30 per cent.—the largest cut in unemployment for young people that there has ever been. Furthermore, even today's figures show employment over the past three months up by 80,000. The number of vacancies unfilled has risen again. There are 260,000 more jobs than there were a year earlier. As a result of what the Government have done, to the opposition of the hon. Gentleman's party, long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for more than 30 years. That is how to get through economic difficulties, not returning to having 15 per cent. interest rates, a million manufacturing jobs lost and Tory boom and bust.

Dan Norris: Farmers in my constituency have been greatly encouraged by the lifting of the beef ban, particularly when they compare that with the lamentable performance of the previous Government. Does the Prime Minister agree that co-operation, not confrontation, is the way forward in Europe?

The Prime Minister: As a result of co-operating sensibly in Europe, we had the beef ban lifted. When we came into office, virtually nothing had been done to secure the lifting of the ban. As a result of what we did, and within 18 months of our following a different policy, we secured the lifting of the beef ban. I believe that that is the best way to get results for Britain in Europe. We will stand up for British interests whenever it is necessary and, if necessary, alone. However, we do not seek confrontation as the sole method by which to provide British diplomacy with a way forward.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Has the Prime Minister read today the Treasury "Survey of Independent Forecasts", which forecasts growth for the UK economy in 1999 at just 0.8 per cent? That forecast is below the Chancellor's forecast range of 1 to 1.5 per cent., which was published just six weeks ago. Does the Prime Minister realise that while he complacently talks about stability, the reality is that his policy is bringing the British economy grinding to a halt?

The Prime Minister: As a result of the policies that we are pursuing, we have the best chance of getting ourselves through any economic downturn. Monetary stability is in place because of the independence of the Bank of England, which has given us the lowest long-term interest rates for more than 30 years. Because of the changes that we made in public spending on coming to office, we were able to reduce the Conservative deficit, and are able to put £40 billion extra into our schools and hospitals from next April. Through the working families tax credit and the new deal, we are helping families to make work pay. That is a better way of getting through any economic difficulty than boom and bust, underfunding of our public

services, and creating a situation where we end up with large numbers of people unemployed for long periods, as happened under the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Further to my right hon. Friend's welcome statement to the House on Monday, does he agree that there is a need for an impact study on the effects of the abolition of duty free on jobs throughout the United Kingdom, and its economic effect on airports, seaports and jobs in such units? The need for the impact study is heightened by the fact that information on the alternative to duty free has never been published. Will my right hon. Friend explain the difference between duty-free goods and tax-paid goods? I think that hon. Members are sometimes confused about that.

The Prime Minister: We support the notion of having a proper study of the effects of the abolition of duty free. The door to that has now been pushed open as a result of what we agreed at the Vienna summit. Our difficulty is still that, seven years ago, the previous Conservative Government agreed to abolish duty free and unanimity is required to change that. We shall try to do our best to get it changed; if we are able to do so, it will be another example of a better method of diplomacy than that of the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. William Hague: Last Thursday, the Treasury made an announcement that means that people who have done the right thing and saved for their retirement, but who are too poor to pay income tax, will now have to pay a new tax on their hard-earned savings. Will the Prime Minister personally look again at that misguided decision?

The Prime Minister: I explained last week that we would make an announcement on the policy on that matter, and we did so. We believe that it is in the best long-term interests of all pensioners. If we combine it with the measures that we announced yesterday, for the first time many people on modest incomes are going to get far better access to decent-quality pensions than they have ever had before.

Mr. Hague: This decision will cost the 300,000 poorer pensioners, who will lose their tax credit on dividends, an average of £75 a year. How on earth is that meant to be in their best long-term interests? Is it not yet another tax increase from a Government who said that there would be no tax increases at all? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Age Concern has said that it believes the decision to be totally unjust? Does he at least accept that the measure hits poorer non-taxpayers?

The Prime Minister: No, because the best thing for those pensioners and other pensioners is that we have a healthy method of ensuring that companies earn the profits that allow pensioners to get the best deal. Those people will get the best deal—[Interruption.] No matter how much Conservative Members shout, as a result of what we announced yesterday lots of people on modest incomes, for the first time and after all the pension mis-selling gambles of the Conservative years, are going to get the chance to save properly. It is the best deal for them and for all pensioners.

Mr. Hague: It is very clear from the Prime Minister's answers that he has no rational justification whatsoever


for the policy. I am sorry that he cannot admit that it hits the poorest non-taxpayers, because the Paymaster General has actually said that it does so. Although I note that he is not here now, the Paymaster General said in the House on 30 June:
I am aware …of the growing anxiety among poorer non-taxpayers who have been hit by the measure".—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 175.]
Now, the Prime Minister is defending the measure, but will not agree with the Paymaster General. Surely he is not distancing himself from the Paymaster General for any particular reason?
Why have the Government taken this decision? Is the Prime Minister prepared to think again? Is he prepared to accept representations from Members of Parliament and from Age Concern and similar organisations, and to tell the Treasury to rescind the announcement that it made last week?

The Prime Minister: No. We looked at this over six months and we believe it is the right thing for future pension provision. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the changes we made yesterday—which I note he does not dispute at all—for the first time all those who have had a full working life will get proper pension provision. Those people will no longer be dependent on means-tested benefits. As a result of stakeholder pensions, people with private pension schemes will get better-value, better-costed and better-regulated schemes. Those people on incomes of less than £9,000 will get special help and those on incomes of between £9,000 and £18,500 will get even better help. Taken as a whole, the package gives the best deal to pensioners that this country has seen after years of pensions mis-selling and pension fraud under the Conservatives.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has yet to say a single word in justification of this policy. Yet again, he and the Government are trying to face both ways at once. One day, they want to encourage everyone to save for their retirement, and the next day, they are defending taxing more heavily those people who have saved. The Government's indecision in this area has now produced a real and genuine injustice for several hundred thousand people. It is not too late to think again. Can the right hon. Gentleman produce a single reason why he should not think again?

The Prime Minister: Yes—and they are the reasons that I have just given the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I appreciate that Opposition Members do not wish to listen to them. Our pension proposals are better for those on modest as well as higher incomes. As a result of the proposals announced by the Secretary of State for Social Security yesterday, people on modest incomes will get more help than ever before with their pensions.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is a choice between Labour and Conservative on pensions, since I assume that the Conservatives' pension policy is still the one announced by their deputy leader before the election. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to hear it. That would mean an end to tax relief on private pensions and the abolition, over time, of the basic state pension. It would have a massive upfront cost for current taxpayers. Our proposals will take more people off

means-tested benefits, improve pensions for people on modest incomes and end the scandals of mis-selling allowed under the previous Conservative Government.

Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the contribution that carers make to the economy has been consistently underestimated because we do not count the value of their unpaid work? Does he agree that yesterday's announcement of a second-tier pension for carers not only marks this Government's determination to protect the most vulnerable, but should signal our recognition of the extremely valuable work that carers do, at great saving to the Exchequer and often at great personal cost? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the future needs of carers will be at the forefront of Government policy not just in pensions but in other areas of social policy?

The Prime Minister: Yes. Carers and disabled people with broken employment records will, for the first time, have the right to a second pension. Three groups will gain from that policy: parents taking breaks to look after young children; others caring for a sick or disabled person; and those forced to leave work because of an illness or disability. Over time, at least 4 million people will benefit by up to £50 a week. That is surely a better set of pension proposals than those of the Opposition, which would do nothing for carers and would abolish the basic state pension.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I am proud to represent the Macclesfield constituency in the north-west and the north-west region as a whole, I am also proud to be a citizen of, and a Member of Parliament in, the United Kingdom. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why so much of the Government's legislation and so many of their policies are designed to undermine the United Kingdom and its sovereignty? Is the intention merely to soften us up for the Europe of regions?

The Prime Minister: No. We are in favour of devolution because we believe in a sensible partnership within the United Kingdom for the modern world. That is why the Conservative party is now in favour of devolution: the Conservatives have changed their mind since the election. As a result of their policy at the election, they secured not a single seat in Scotland or Wales.
As for Europe, of course we want a Europe of nation states. However, we do not believe that in order to be pro-British one has to be anti-European. That is the difference.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Bearing in mind the fact that patronage can be just as undemocratic as heredity, will the royal commission be able to consider the complete abolition of the House of Lords? After all, the Scottish Parliament will soon be setting a good example by passing legislation without reference to any second Chamber. Would not a modern democratic Scottish Parliament be degraded if it were involved in the nomination of a few characters to a pantomime such as the House of Lords? Will my right hon. Friend therefore reject such a harebrained proposal even though it is reported to emanate from his former tutor, the Lord Chancellor?

The Prime Minister: As for the long-term future of the House of Lords, we have announced the establishment


of a royal commission and we shall wait to find out its decision. I am in favour of retaining a revising Chamber and having a bicameral system, which has served our country well. What has served our country ill is the domination of that Chamber by hereditary peers, the vast majority of whom take the Conservative Whip and therefore provide an in-built, permanent Conservative majority. We can get rid of the worst aspects of the House of Lords while preserving the idea of a second, properly revising Chamber.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is ethical to have released every IRA murderer without achieving the decommissioning of a single armament?

The Prime Minister: We believe that the right policy is that the whole agreement that we entered into on Good Friday is put in place. I ask the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Conservative Opposition, to try to stick with the bipartisan policy that we supported in opposition.
I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we supported that bipartisan approach in difficult circumstances; for example, when it was revealed that, despite their denials, the previous Government had been involved in secret negotiations with Sinn Fein. After the first IRA ceasefire, we continued to support the previous Government's approach when they asked for the ceasefire to be declared permanent and then dropped that demand. We followed them when they included the Washington 3 precondition of decommissioning and when they effectively abandoned it. We supported the previous Government all the way through the process and never once played politics with the issue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's party will do the same.

Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: There is a lot of business before I can take points of order.

Competitiveness

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on competitiveness.
The White Paper that I am publishing describes the Government's strategy for modernising the UK economy. Overall, our industrial performance still lags well behind that of the United States and our European partners, despite all the privatisations and trade union reforms of our predecessors' 18 years. Yet a new economic landscape beckons, which will radically change the terms on which businesses compete with one another. As a Government, we have to create the conditions for an economic step change. The White Paper is a wake-up call to the nation to do just that.
The starting point for the Government's analysis is that knowledge and its profitable exploitation by business is the key to competitiveness. An advanced industrial nation such as ours cannot sustain the growing prosperity we want by producing standard products and services made with pedestrian methods and commonplace technology. Others can do that, just as well and more cheaply. We shall win only by developing innovative goods and services that customers want to buy and that use world-class production systems and the most sophisticated technology to keep us ahead of our rivals. We need also to ensure that the best environment for business in the world is here in the UK and the rest of Europe, which is our home market.
The bedrock of that business environment is macro-economic stability. Business hates uncertainty. That is why this Government are so determined to steer a stable course through the world's current economic turbulence. We fully understand the difficulties that this turbulence can cause.
The Government have no illusions that they alone can transform Britain's economic performance. Of course they cannot. It is not the Government's job to second-guess boardroom decisions; nor is the hidden hand of market forces sufficient to secure our competitive success. The false hopes of planning in the 1960s and 1970s and the obsession with laissez-faire in the 1980s both failed. This Government steer a new path: to work with the grain of markets, to use our regulatory powers to promote competition as the single most important spur to innovation; to encourage businesses to collaborate with each other to compete more efficiently; and to invest in the capabilities of the economy, including its skills and technological awareness.
Within this framework, there are three key roles for my Department. First, we must invest in our world-class science and knowledge base. Secondly, we will step up our efforts to convert the fruits of this vital resource into hard commercial success. Thirdly, we will lead a crusade to develop in Britain the spirit of enterprise so characteristic of the United States, so that we seize the new business opportunities that are before us.
The quality of the UK's science and engineering base is the foundation on which the knowledge economy is built. It is the mainspring of innovation, yet university research has been the victim of long-standing under-investment. This Government have acted to reverse the decline.
With the Wellcome Trust, we are investing an extra £1.4 billion in British science and engineering. We also need the private sector to increase its commitment to research and development. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be consulting business on supplementing the current tax system with a research and development tax credit for small businesses. That is also why we will back strong participation by UK business in the European Union's R and D programme. However, research by itself does not generate wealth.
We must ensure that more research is transformed into commercial success, and that new ideas lead to successful innovation and new products. My Department will therefore switch resources to increase its support for innovation by 20 per cent. An expanded teaching company scheme will pay for 200 technology champions every year from among our best science and engineering graduates to help businesses innovate and to exploit the latest technology. In addition, the Government will offer a range of new incentives to reward universities which work effectively with business. Our target is to increase by 50 per cent. the number of innovative start-up businesses each year from the public sector science and engineering base by 2002.
Exploitation of science and business development is often strongest when businesses cluster together, creating a critical mass of investment, skills and co-operation. Governments cannot create clusters out of nothing, but they can help emerging clusters to grow. In a new initiative, which I regard as of fundamental importance, the Government will for the first time set up teams, each led by a Minister, to tackle barriers to growth of nationally significant clusters, co-ordinating action across Government and with business. The first of those teams will concentrate on biotechnology, and will be led by the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury.
Boosting enterprise will be given the highest priority in what the Government say and do. We must encourage more people of all ages and backgrounds to start their own business, and we must help those businesses to grow. I have no magic wand that can create an enterprise culture in Britain, although Government can play a role in changing attitudes, facilitating finance, offering networks of support and enabling businesses to learn from one another, improving technological awareness, especially access to the new digital technologies, and promoting at every opportunity liberalisation and competition, without which an enterprise culture cannot flourish.
First, on attitudes, we will back a business-led campaign to promote enterprise in every part of the country. We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consider how best entrepreneurship skills can be introduced to teaching in school. This year, the Government are spending £15 million to promote links between education and business, and are co-sponsoring, with the private sector, the expansion of the young enterprise scheme into higher education, helping students to run their own businesses. That will build on the measures that the Government have already taken to invest in and reform the education system at every level.
Secondly, the financial community needs to be as entrepreneurial and innovative as the business community. This Government have already introduced a much-needed cut in capital gains tax. Today, I can announce the creation of a new £150 million enterprise fund to bring together public and private finance for


high-growth businesses. The fund will help financial providers to develop the expertise to understand and back growth businesses and new innovative technologies. It will help to create in the UK a far-sighted financial community that will be capable of taking risks alone.
Thirdly, to help innovative business start-ups through their crucial early development, I have set the business links network a target of supporting each year 10,000 new growth businesses. In a modern, enterprising economy, businesses need to learn from one another. The Government can play a crucial role. Indeed, we are full partners in the Confederation of British Industry's "Fit for the Future" best-practice campaign. My Department has helped the Motor Industry Forum to bring master engineers from Japan to advise and train vehicle component suppliers on world-class practice. That has produced truly outstanding improvements in performance. My Department will fund up to 10 similar programmes in other industrial sectors.
To help the regional development agencies in England to promote innovation and competitiveness, we shall provide them with an extra £10 million. We have decided to re-focus regional selective assistance on high-quality, knowledge-based projects that provide high-value jobs.
Fourthly, new digital technologies are the nerve system of the knowledge economy. Electronic commerce will be among the most revolutionary changes to markets since the industrial revolution. I recognise that many smaller firms find it difficult to make the leap into electronic trading, so I am launching a new programme to ensure that we achieve a target of 1 million small businesses exploiting the internet to the full by 2002. The Government will invest £20 million in new comprehensive advisory services to ensure that that target is met.
My ambition is that Britain should, by the end of this Parliament, have the best environment world wide for electronic trading. I have today published a document that benchmarks our performance in the digital economy against our main competitors. I will introduce an electronic commerce Bill later in this Session to take our laws into the electronic age and reinforce confidence in electronic trading. I will appoint an e-envoy to help to lead the United Kingdom in international discussions on electronic commerce. The performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office will conduct a study to build on that. I am also developing proposals further to liberalise communications markets.
Finally, if enterprise and innovation are to flourish in the UK, we need greater competition in markets, and those markets need to modernise. For 18 years, our predecessors preached free markets, but took fright at big business. We have already passed the new Competition Act, and we will use it to attack anti-competitive practices, strengthening the Office of Fair Trading so that it can expose all corners of the economy to the stimulus of competition. I will also consult next year on the case for reform of merger policy to ensure that that, too, promotes competition.
The White Paper sets out 75 commitments to boost business capabilities, promote business collaboration and strengthen competition, all aimed at closing the performance gap against our main competitors. In addition, we need to measure how well we are doing. I have therefore decided to develop and publish indicators

to track the country's progress: a new competitiveness index. Each year the Government will review Britain's progress against those indicators, and agree what further action is required. A new competitiveness council, drawn from across business, will advise the Government on the action needed.
In one respect only is this a modest White Paper. It is a mere 67 pages, compared with the 634 pages of the three competitiveness tomes published by the previous Administration. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was thoroughly dedicated in his goals, and I commend him for telling Britain some home truths, but still Britain slipped behind. The growl was there, but I am afraid not the bite. Now even the growl has left, and just a squeak remains in the Conservative party.
In contrast, our White Paper charts a realistic and attainable way forward. For too long, a dignified retreat from economic success has satisfied us. Britain has played on half the pitch—inventing but not selling; competing but not working enough with others. Now we are going to do things differently. Government and business will act in partnership, with focus, energy and enterprise. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Mr. John Redwood: I thank the Secretary of State for fitting the House of Commons into his busy media schedule today. When we heard him this morning, he seemed to avoid telling us in advance the content and substance of his statement, but now we know that he was briefing ahead of it—there is nothing new, and nothing of substance, in it. This time, the leaks contained nothing, and the statement contains nothing. The emperor has no clothes.
The Secretary of State just told us that he has published a paper of only 67 pages. Has he not bothered to read the other two volumes of his own White Paper, which comprise 58 extra pages? He obviously has not got around to that in his ministerial box. How can we believe that the Secretary of State has his heart in this, if he did not even know that there were two additional volumes that he had not read?
The truth is that the Chancellor calls the shots. He has stolen the Secretary of State for Trade's garments. The Government's policies on competitiveness, such as they are, were announced in the pre-Budget statement by his right hon. Friend. The Secretary of State once again—metaphorically speaking, for the radio audience—comes naked into the debating Chamber.
Today, British businesses know that their competitiveness has been gravely damaged by the Government's policies. Now they hear from the Secretary of State that, under Labour's economic policy, they have no future if they are making standard products and providing standard services. What a chilling message for his own constituents.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Nonsense.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman says, "Nonsense." We have just heard the Secretary of State read out a statement saying that there was no future in Britain under Labour for businesses that supply standard products and services. What offer of hope does he have for his own constituents, who make just such goods and provide just such services? He tells us of more money for science


and technology, which has been announced several times before, originally by the previous President of the Board of Trade.
Is the e-envoy in addition to the digital envoy announced a short while ago? Will those two gentlemen or ladies be in competition, or has the digital envoy been abolished before being appointed, only to be replaced by the putative e-envoy? The whole thing is risible and muddled.
The truth is that the Government have made it too dear to make things in Britain, through increased taxes, extra regulations and high interest rates. Fearing many more redundancies and bankruptcies, the DTI wants to make it easier to try again when a business has gone bust. There is confidence in Labour's economic policy for you. When the Government redesign the bankruptcy laws, they must be careful not to design a con man's charter. We could not support that.
All we get from the Secretary of State are endless criticisms of management and workers, while he makes their task all but impossible. How will £2.3 billion of extra cost each year for the working time regulations make for cheaper goods and services? How does £2.9 billion a year of extra costs from the minimum wage stimulate jobs? How does £25 billion in extra tax over the life of this Parliament help business to find the money to invest? How can an unspecified amount of extra pension contributions—announced but not quantified yesterday—help our businesses to compete in a price-sensitive market around the world? Does he not see that all those measures make it dearer to make things in Britain, and less attractive for companies to go on investing here or to invest here for the first time?
Will the Secretary of State at least provide some answers to the detailed but important questions that the McKinsey study and the Government's work on competitiveness have thrown up? For example, do the Government intend to make it easier to get planning permission for new hotels, out-of-town superstores and hypermarkets and housing estates in busy areas? Is he aware how unpopular such a McKinsey policy would be in some of those areas?
Will the Government go to Brussels to demand more milk quota to help the dairy industry, which, on the Secretary of State's own analysis, is held back by this quota system that is unfair on Britain? Will he open up the new car market in Britain to full retail competition? Now that he has told the Financial Times that Labour was wrong to oppose privatisation in many cases, will he think again on his policy towards the Post Office, and privatise it, or will he tell us how, without privatisation, it can afford to buy businesses abroad, how much he will let it borrow, and whether he has squared that with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Will the Government veto damaging European Union plans for a withholding tax and the abolition of corporate tax breaks in Britain? Will they stand up for the financial centres of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which bring substantial business to London; or does the Chancellor intend to abolish those centres, which are so popular with rich Labour Ministers, and lose the business from London and those centres to Bermuda, the Bahamas and New York?
How much will the Government give in tax breaks to new companies and entrepreneurs? Will those tax breaks, such as the small one at which he hinted in his statement, survive the work of the Financial Secretary, who chairs a working party in the EU to abolish such tax breaks? Perhaps her work will be completed before the Chancellor's consultation.
What will the Government do to persuade the British pharmaceutical industry to invest in the United Kingdom rather than in Ireland, which it tells me is now so much more attractive thanks to Labour's tax increases? Under us, it invested here; under Labour, it is thinking of going elsewhere.
The pantomime season has arrived today with the Secretary of State's performance in the House. He wants to play Aladdin. Unfortunately, as he rubs his lamp no riches will appear. The genie has already worked his 48 hours this week and is nowhere to be seen. Perhaps he is stuck at the dome, awaiting the late arrival of the Jubilee line, like the Secretary of State and his officials.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not play crude politics and make misleading statements about me in his reply. I hope that he does not have a pre-planned reply, but that he will get down to answering some of my serious questions for a change. My colleagues and I will go on asking them, because business needs to know where it stands. As he dithers, factories close. As he fails to make up his mind, business gets into a bigger mess.
The Secretary of State has had nothing to say about job losses and factory closures. He has failed to convince the Chancellor to change his policy to help the workers in his constituency. The White Paper is as much use to a redundant industrial worker in Hartlepool as an umbrella in a hurricane. As we face the prospect of more factory closures in basic industry, will he wake up? This is a wake-up call for him, not for the rest of the country. Ministers are failing. Will he now respond to the questions?

Mr. Mandelson: That was a characteristically ritual, ungenerous and extra-planetary response to my statement. We can understand why, of course. The right hon. Gentleman's mind is on other things. His mind is on his job application to become the next boss of the Institute of Directors, which has emerged in the media. It is clear that he has decided to throw in the sponge, or perhaps the bathroom sponge has decided to chuck him. I do not think that that response will do anything at all for his job application, because it will lack any semblance of credibility among business people throughout Britain. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to answer his serious questions. If I had heard any serious questions, I would have answered them. On today's performance, the right hon. Gentleman will be staying exactly where we want him—on the Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the economy in ways that most who practise business in the economy would barely recognise. His problem is that he just cannot come to terms with a new world in which the Labour party works with business, and with the centrepiece of our policies being our commitment to enterprise and competition. He just cannot understand that—he cannot get a handle on it—so he cannot respond.
The right hon. Gentleman needs to understand that what business needs more than anything else is stability—macro-economic stability. That is the precondition on which business can get started, can grow and can become successful. In the Tory world of boom and bust, none of the measures that I have outlined today would have been remotely relevant, because none of them would have stood an earthly chance of succeeding with business in the whirlwind conditions of boom and bust that the Tories created over 10½ years and more while in office.
Macro-economic stability is a vital but insufficient condition for business success. Business success depends on a combination of top-quality products and sophisticated ways of making them by capable firms collaborating with others to bring products to market which are driven by strong competition. It is that combination which underpins the policies that I have set forth in the White Paper this afternoon, on which I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has absolutely nothing intelligent or original to say.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a comprehensive range of measures which will greatly enhance Britain's capability to compete. In particular, may I ask him about the proposals for the enterprise fund? It is clear to anyone who looks at the difficulties faced by British business in recent years that a major problem has been that of gaining access quickly and easily to funds to allow enterprise to develop.
Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the enterprise fund will be administered by a different cadre of officials from those who are currently responsible for such things as regional selective assistance? At the heart of the new proposal must be speed, clarity and transparency of transaction if businesses are to get decisions quickly. That is the way in which they will take advantage of market opportunities. The civil service and those responsible for administering the enterprise fund will need to be told that and told that quickly. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be a different culture in the administration of this much-welcomed and greatly praised proposal for an enterprise fund?

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The aim of the enterprise fund is to provide expertise and leverage to get more funds, primarily from the private sector, into small start-up businesses. That is its aim. It will mark a change in the basis of funding from loans to venture capital and equity-based arrangements.
We propose that the fund should comprise four elements of assistance. The first is a more cost-effective small firms loan guarantee scheme. The second is support from banks for very high-technology venture capital proposals. The third is support for enhanced local and regional venture capital activity. One of the problems with venture capital is that it tends to be highly concentrated in the capital city, whereas, when it is available in the regions, there are inadequate arrangements for levering it into small businesses.
The fourth element is support for innovative proposals by the finance industry to meet the needs of fast-growth businesses. The new fund will contain all those elements, and I have very much taken on board my hon. Friend's strictures on its administration.

Mr. David Chidgey: I do not wish to be considered one of those who are ungenerous in their

reaction to the Secretary of State's statement. I should therefore say that, yes, it is high on style, and it is pretty high on ideals—but the key question is whether it will fall short on actions. Building on partnerships between universities and business is, of course, welcome—but will the Government's action reverse Britain's research and development investment record, which has placed us at the bottom of the league? Moves to promote collaboration and best practice in business are, of course, welcome—it is common sense—but where is the Government's action to boost the best of British enterprise through sound economic policies and affordable investment capital?
I should like to ask the Secretary of State three specific questions that may demonstrate the problems facing businesses across the United Kingdom, in every hon. Member's constituency. First, will the Secretary of State, in the spirit of his competitiveness White Paper, confirm the civil aviation research and development grant to the British aerospace industry? The grant—£22 million per year; a vital seed-corn investment in civil aviation and aerospace research—hangs in the balance.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State ensure that his colleagues in government stabilise the pound and bring down interest rates, so that firms such as Carbospar, which is in my constituency, that are winners of the millennium product award—that much-vaunted exercise of his—do not in a moment lose half their projected overseas sales?
Thirdly and finally, will the Secretary of State act to change the investment climate, so that firms such as Lancashire Fittings in Harrogate, which is another millennium products award winner, do not have to take their superb inventions to Sweden to obtain essential finance, instead of employing hundreds of workers in the United Kingdom manufacturing industry?
In a nutshell, in their economic and investment policies, will the Government play their part to help, not hinder, British competitiveness?

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. On the CARAD scheme, we have invested more in aerospace and launch aid than any other Government in the history of the United Kingdom. I therefore do not think that we need to take any lessons on our commitment to investment in the aerospace industry. I keep under review all the financial commitments and schemes supported by the Department, and the CARAD scheme is no exception.
I realise, of course, the difficulties caused by the level of sterling and the recent impact of turbulence in Asia on manufacturers and exporters. A number of factors have to be taken into consideration when addressing that issue. However, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government will not resort to short-term fixes that would only sacrifice the long-term health of the economy in return for short-term transitory gains. That applies—right across the board—to all aspects of the macro-economy.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the problem is not with our science and engineering base, which world class and tremendous. The United Kingdom invents an enormous amount. The problem is that we do not have the entrepreneurial climate and the support for


business to ensure that what is invented here is also manufactured here. That is what all the measures in the White Paper are aimed at.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when all the envoys have envoyed and all the other wonderful initiatives have been implemented—including the one on coal, which I readily accept is a wonderful initiative—other areas will remain in need of attention? I refer in particular to the textile industry, which has been hammered by the Asian economies. The effects there are seen by loads of Labour Members.
What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that we beat off that unfair competition? Will he bear it in mind that the Remploy factories for the disabled face such severe competition that they are losing Ministry of Defence contracts—unfairly, in my view? Will he look into those issues to ensure that, in addition to what he has done for coal and some other areas, we manage to save those vital jobs in 1999?

Mr. Mandelson: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that Mr. Budge of RJB Mining has today announced the signing of a £1 billion contract for the supply of coal, which is very good news for all those who work for that company. I am having a meeting on Friday with relevant Members of Parliament and trade union officials to consider what I readily acknowledge to be the serious plight of the textile industry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry is actively considering measures that the Government might be able to take.
Like all traditional industries, the textile industry needs to look to innovation, continuous improvement in how it does business, and the constant sophistication of its products and production processes if it is to compete successfully in tough and competitive world markets. That is the message of the White Paper.
I draw a lot of encouragement from other traditional industries that are doing that. Today I visited what could be described as a traditional metal-bashing company. Thanks to innovation, the introduction of new technology and the use of the internet—which Conservative Members take such delight in sneering at because they do not understand the real world—the company is once again able to compete in world markets, because it has increased its competitiveness. Every industry—new or old, mature or high-tech—has to do that.

Mr. David Curry: The Secretary of State has emphasised the importance of the biotech industry and the need for stability. Will he examine urgently the increasing incoherence that is descending on the regulatory process for the approval of genetically modified products in the United Kingdom, and the real danger that, because of that incoherence and delay, Britain and Europe will be overtaken in a technology that is making enormous strides elsewhere? If we want to be at the centre of technology and development, we are going the wrong way about it in that crucial new area that will affect the whole of mankind.

Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman makes valid and intelligent observations about an industrial

sector that is growing in importance, and will probably be one of the greatest contributors to economic growth in this country. We should not take lightly the prospects for that industry or its regulatory framework. That is under active consideration by Ministers. We are consulting widely, not least because, if we are to carry public opinion with us on the new scientific developments and their conversion into products such as genetically modified foods, the public must feel comfortable and secure about the regulation of the industries and the use of such technology. They have to have clear information, facts and labelling about what they are eating in the case of genetically modified foods. We are taking steps to create and maintain that confidence and to ensure that the biotechnology sector moves ahead on a stable and confident footing.
However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the issue is very dear to me. That is why I have announced today that the biotechnology cluster that has sprung up around Cambridge will receive support and help from Ministers, in this case from a team lead by the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury.

Mr. Derek Foster: May I invite my right hon. Friend to ignore the sound growls from the clown prince of darkness on the Tory Front Bench? May I congratulate him on the White Paper, and especially on what he has said about information and communication technology, research and development, innovation and small business development? He will know that Glaxo Wellcome in Barnard Castle employs 1,500 people in my constituency, which, like his, is in the northern region. It is a superb employer, is well regarded in the community and contributes to the community.
My right hon. Friend will also know that the pharmaceutical industry makes a substantial contribution to the British economy—contributing £2.3 billion to the balance of payments and £5.5 billion worth of export—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is time for questions, and a number of hon. Members still wish to speak. We have very important business ahead of us, so I shall only take questions now.

Mr. Foster: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but I was carried away with my enthusiasm for the pharmaceutical industry. In view of that substantial contribution, is it not surprising that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is not on the Cabinet Sub-Committee responsible for competitiveness and productivity? Will my right hon. Friend rectify that?

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I accept what he says about Glaxo Wellcome, which pours an enormous amount of investment into research and development in Britain. Indeed, if every other private sector company did the same on that scale, we would certainly be in business.
However, my right hon. Friend should not take it amiss that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is not on that Cabinet Committee. He cannot be on every Cabinet Committee, as he is a busy man, but I know that he has very much at heart the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. He has to maintain a careful


balance in his approach to pharmaceutical pricing, because he needs to consider the investment by pharmaceutical companies in research and development and the time it takes to bring products to market. In considering all those factors in the round and in close consultation with other colleagues, he will, I am sure, reach the right conclusion.

Sir Peter Tapsell: An hour ago, did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Prime Minister again boast that British interest rates have fallen to their lowest point for 30 years? [HON. MEMBERS: "Long-term."] Yes—long-term interest rates. Will he explain to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that the reason that long-term interest rates in the United States which were 6.25 per cent. in the early summer are now below 5 per cent., and the reason that Japanese long-term interest rates are down to 1.25 per cent., is that business men in America and Asia are apprehensive about the future and are cutting back on their long-term industrial investments? That is also the main reason for the reduction in long-term interest rates in Britain. If Ministers cannot understand the significance of the key business indicator in these matters, they are most unlikely to get their industrial policy right.

Mr. Mandelson: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman's question was; it seemed a little confused. I would expect him to welcome the fact that interest rates have now been reduced to 6.25 per cent. That level is in sharp contrast with the 15 per cent. peak in the 1990s, which led to so many business closures. He is wrong to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was wrong this afternoon, but he is right to say that long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend has said that, as part of the drive to increase risk taking, he wants to make it easier for individuals to bounce back from bankruptcy. How precisely will that work? What guarantees can he give that all sorts of unsavoury crooks and rogues who have ripped off honest people will not re-emerge from bankruptcy in a different guise?

Mr. Mandelson: There is a difference between rogue, dishonest directors—who will be brought to book more quickly under the proposals being considered by the Government—and those who have honestly set out with a business idea, but have failed through no fault of their own. All we are saying is that no stigma should attach to the failure of honest business people. On the contrary, we want them to try again, to learn from their experience in setting up businesses, and, if they are so inclined, to try to set up a new business. In offering that encouragement, we will make an important contribution to changing the enterprise culture. At the moment, too many people are discouraged from going into business by fear of failure and the stigma that attaches to it.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I welcome the broad thrust of the White Paper, although most of the matters with which it deals will be devolved to the new Scottish Parliament, where the first SNP Administration will be keen to drive forward Scottish enterprise. How much of the £150 million in the new enterprise fund will be allocated to Scotland? Paragraph 2.25 is particularly opaque on that matter.

Whatever the sum is, will it be in addition to the existing Scottish block, or will the Scottish Office be expected to fund it from the block?

Mr. Mandelson: I am glad to accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question—that Scotland will remain part of the United Kingdom. There would be little opportunity for people in businesses in Scotland to benefit from the enterprise fund if the SNP had its way and Scotland was separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. In so far as he makes a valid observation about the workings of the fund, we will take his point into account when we draw up in detail the operational methods of the fund.

Mr. David Borrow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Lancashire aerospace industry—which is based on the two aerospace factories at Warton and Salmesbury and on the many small and medium-sized enterprises across the county—is one of the jewels in the crown of British industry. I am also sure that the White Paper will be welcomed by the industry, particularly the proposal to encourage links with education—I know that he recently visited All Hallows school in my constituency, which has close links with British Aerospace.
Will my right hon. Friend encourage the creation of a cluster for the aerospace industry in Lancashire, and ensure that organisations such as the Consortium for Lancashire Aerospace are involved in any discussions on it? Moreover, will he ensure that his officials are aware of the long lead time for aerospace projects? Although the industry is doing well at the moment, the actions that his Department takes and encourages now will have a dramatic effect, perhaps not in five years' time, but in 10 or 20 years' time, when schemes currently on the drawing board are rolled out into the airports.

Mr. Mandelson: I hear what my hon. Friend says in his last observation, and we will consider his point. I agree about the contribution of the aerospace industry to prosperity not only in Lancashire, but throughout the United Kingdom. The aerospace industry has an important set of supply chains—a series of small and medium companies which supply the industry extremely efficiently, among whom it is important to encourage closer co-operation. The Lancashire consortium plays a role, and the Industry Forum draws together all those involved in supplying the aerospace industry. That may well be exactly the sort of endeavour and model that the DTI will seek to encourage further as our proposals are rolled out. I take my hon. Friend's point about the potentiality of the aerospace industry as a cluster in Lancashire, and we will be happy to consider that.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Presumably the Secretary of State can confirm that he has sought to deal in the White Paper with inhibitors to competitiveness. If we are to have competitiveness indices, would it not be sensible to survey British industry on what it sees as the inhibitors to competitiveness at present? I suspect that issues such as high interest rates and non-labour costs would come high on that list.
I believe that there ought to be a wide debate on the matter, and certainly I intend to circulate the White Paper as widely as possible within my constituency. However,


I also intend to ask businesses what they see as the inhibitors to competitiveness, and what in the White Paper they see as relevant to them—because I suspect that it will not be very much.

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman will be disappointed if that is his view, because all the ideas, proposals and measures contained on every page of the White Paper have been based on unprecedented consultation between the Government and individual business men and women from all parts of the country throughout the drawing up and the discussion of the White Paper. Literally scores of business people have been involved in discussions with the Department, and directly with Ministers.
I pay tribute to my predecessor as Secretary of State, the Leader of the House, who was here for my statement. It was she who put the arrangements in place and decided to involve business people to the extent and in the way that has been achieved. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that, far from being disappointed, many business leaders have already expressed to me their great satisfaction with the White Paper, which they see—for once, and at long last—as the most practical and sensible set of appropriate measures from a Government in 20 years.

Mr. Ian Pearson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement? I particularly welcome his focus on supporting clusters; the "D" side of R and D; the expansion of the teaching company scheme and encouraging more spin-outs from universities; the new enterprise fund; and targeting new high-growth businesses?
Will my right hon. Friend do two things? First, will he reward and value academics who work with industry so that that option is not, as at present, the third best, behind publishing in refereed journals, or teaching? Secondly, on regional selective assistance, will he ensure that the metal-bashing companies to which he referred continue to be supported in upgrading their businesses, and that they will qualify for regional selective assistance? That will show that the Labour party values the manufacturing sector—unlike the Conservative party, which devastated the sector when it was in office.

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend can rest absolutely assured that our manufacturing sector remains, and will remain, central to our future prosperity and to the Government's aims, objectives and policies. The key point is that manufacturing, like every other sector of the British economy, has constantly to innovate and to bring in new ideas from our science and engineering base. It needs to bring in people with ideas for new products or production systems and new systems for working, because that is the only way in which traditional manufacturing industries and processes can maintain their competitiveness and their share of world markets. Many are doing that now; even more will have to do so in the future.
It is extremely important to reward academics. At the root of the schemes that the Department already organises and that we will refine in the future are arrangements by which academics can leave tenure and go into businesses

without fearing that their jobs will close behind them, which would provide a strong disincentive and discouragement. The teaching companies scheme, which produces first-rate technology champions from the academic sector who go to work in businesses, has proved a great success, and we intend to expand it.

Mr. Eric Forth: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's reference to the spirit of enterprise in the United States, and his crusade to bring that spirit here. Recognising that the United States is still the world's most productive major economy, with an unemployment rate at half that of the European Union, will he pledge that, if he seeks to steer the British economy in any direction, it will be in the direction of the United States and not that of Europe?

Mr. Mandelson: It might be worth the right hon. Gentleman mentioning in that context that the United States operates rather an efficient minimum wage. It has had that legislation in place for some time, and it has never had any adverse effect on enterprise, business or prosperity.
My view is absolutely clear: Europe is the biggest integrated market outside the United States. We want to make that market as open, liberalised and competitive as possible. That is the only way in which we will create opportunities for British business. Conservative policies would cut us off from the huge home market that is available to British business and sink us somewhere in the mid-Atlantic, which would be of no value to anyone in this country.

Ms Sally Keeble: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and especially his comments in support of the new high-tech industries, which have already proved important in creating jobs in my constituency. Is he aware that many employers, including those in Northamptonshire, say that one of the big barriers to competitiveness is the lack of skills in the local work force? Whether one works in finance, construction or even retail or fast food, one needs some computer skills, so will he say more about measures that will give us a really competitive work force?

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is right in both her points. The problem for new start-up high-technology businesses, which have a tremendous potential for growth, is the enormous difficulty that they have in gaining access to capital finance in the first place. The venture capital industry in this country is, I think, the biggest in Europe, yet at certain levels, in relation to certain sizes and types of firm—especially high-technology ones—there is an absence of expertise and analytical skills in the financial community.
There is in the financial community a risk aversion and a resistance to financing high-technology firms, which does them considerable harm. It is to get over that prejudice—as some people would see it—or lack of sympathy or understanding that we are taking the measures that we are through the enterprise fund. Through the operation of that fund, we will, as I said, develop a finance community that has much greater expertise and more understanding of that sector, and therefore much greater inclination to offer it seed finance.
My hon. Friend's points about skills are well taken. We are entering an extensive and pervasive information age. The information revolution will touch every part of the United Kingdom economy, and we are doing much to raise skill levels so that we have people prepared, able and willing to work in information and communications technologies. We need to do more, as my White Paper makes clear, and I am glad to say that I have the full support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in making the necessary arrangements, increasing funding, and bringing to fruition our ambitious targets for skill levels in that area.

Points of Order

Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you give some guidance to the House on the application of the Parliament Acts to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill?

Madam Speaker: Yes. The rejection of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill for the second time by the other place now brings into play the provisions of the Parliament Acts. The House of Lords will be asked to return the Bill to this House, where it will be prepared for the Royal Assent. The Parliament Acts require that, before a Bill is presented for the Royal Assent under this procedure, it has been sent to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session in which it was rejected for the second time. The Bill was sent to the Lords on 3 December. In order to comply strictly with the requirements of the Parliament Acts—and I certainly intend to interpret the Acts strictly—it cannot be submitted for Royal Assent until a month after that date.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say now that the Government will not ask the House to agree any motion directing that the Parliament Acts should not apply.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions launched a policy document on shipping at 10.30. That document is still not available in the Vote Office. Instead of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announcing non-policies this afternoon, would it not be better if the Government made policies that they have decided available to Members of Parliament?

Madam Speaker: Would those Members on the Front Bench who are responsible for seeing that documents are available do so immediately? Perhaps I might have an explanation of why the document was not available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that the Prime Minister in the House today, and the Foreign Secretary elsewhere, have been scrupulous in avoiding giving any information that might relate to any operations that might be carried out in the near future by British forces. In the event that any such operations are begun, may I take it that you will look sympathetically on any efforts to ensure that the House has the opportunity to discuss those matters before rising for the Christmas recess?

Madam Speaker: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate—I am sure he does—that I am scrupulous about such matters. I take to heart what he says and I think that I know the full feeling of the House, too.

Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before this afternoon's debate


and the vote on the Government motions in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I would like some clarification on whether the principle behind the motions needs to be decided by the House before any alteration, as described in the amendments, is voted on.

Madam Speaker: I shall deal with that if I am allowed to get on to the main business.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No. Let me get on to the main business before I take points of order that relate to it.

Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised points about payable tax credits. In responding, the Prime Minister seemed to be answering a different question, on the subject of yesterday's statement on pensions. In order to avoid that discontinuity, would it be possible to have the amplification equipment checked in the recess, to ensure that the Prime Minister really understands what is going on?

Madam Speaker: It would be better all round if all hon. Members—and that includes Back Benchers—were rather less noisy at Question Time. Then we could all hear perfectly what was said from the Dispatch Boxes and from all the Benches.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is it necessary? I seem to have mushrooming points of order today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you clarify whether you will take points of order before you rule on the order in which amendments and motions are taken? Is that what is agreed?

Madam Speaker: I am trying to get to that point so that I can give an explanation to the House. First, I want to get the presentation of the Bill out of the way.

BILL PRESENTED

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Dobson, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Secretary Michael and Mr. Paul Boateng, presented a Bill to reduce the age at which certain sexual acts are lawful; to make it an offence for a person aged 18 or over to engage in sexual activity with or directed towards a person under that age if he is in a position of trust in relation to that person; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 10].

Modernisation of the House

Madam Speaker: I inform that House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). Do I need to take further points of order after making that clear?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that you have selected that amendment, but my query is about the order in which the motions were tabled. Two different motions are published in the Order Paper—Sittings of the House (No. 1) and Sittings of the House (No. 2). What appears to have happened is that the selection of the amendment means that the voting on those motions has been placed in an order different from that published in the Order Paper. I understand that the original order would have meant that the Committee's motion recommending that business can be begun at 11.30 am would have been taken first. Subsequently, if that had failed, there would have been a further vote, on the Sittings of the House (No. 2) motion. However, that order has now changed, and the pecking order will be that the vote on suspending business at 2 pm and resuming it at 2.30 pm will come first.
I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to reconsider the matter, because we are dealing with a recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, which I understand was supported unanimously. [Interruption.] Well, it was certainly the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons. That being the case, should not the main proposition be put before the House first?

Madam Speaker: I have given very careful consideration to this matter. It is a House of Commons matter: I am anxious to have as wide a debate as possible and that Members of the House are able to express themselves at Division time.
What will happen is this. I have selected the amendment as I have described. There will be a general debate. At Division time, the amendment, as always, will be put first. If the amendment is successful, all else will fall, as is clear from the note to Government motion 5, which states that
the above motion will not be moved if Margaret Beckett's Motion on Sittings of House (No. 1) is agreed to.
Therefore, if the amendment to Government motion 4 is agreed to, motion 5 will not be put.
I cannot make the matter clearer than that.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Did you say that, if the amendment failed, the whole motion would fall? Did I hear you correctly?

Madam Speaker: If the amendment falls, the motion is carried.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), may I ask you to reconsider your decision, in the light of paragraph 73 of the report?


In that paragraph, the Select Committee states—and I think that it does so unanimously—that motion 4 on the Order Paper should be taken en bloc, and that the amendment should be put only if that motion falls. In effect, both are amendments to the business of the House, and I ask you to reconsider and follow the Select Committee report.

Madam Speaker: I have given careful consideration most of the morning to the matter. I am very concerned that, on a matter that concerns the entire House and its proceedings, debate should be as wide as possible and that hon. Members should have a very free choice as to the way in which they cast their votes.
By proceeding in the way that I have determined—by putting, as we always do, the amendment first—what will happen is that, if the amendment fails, motion 4 is obviously carried. That will be the end of it.

Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The motion has to be put, does it not?

Madam Speaker: Of course the motion has to be put. We all know our procedures. Of course the motion will have to be put. We have been Members of this House for a long time and we know how to put amendments. When amendments fall, the motion is put. If motion 4 is carried, motion 5 falls. I hope that the House now has the answer it wants.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Parliamentary Calendar: Initial Proposals (HC60).
I understand that with this it will be convenient to take the next four motions—Sittings of the House (No. 1)—
That, with effect from Monday 11th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
(1) the House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;
(2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; and
(3) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).
Sittings of the House (No. 2)—
That, with effect from Monday 11 th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
(1) the House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past eleven o'clock, and will proceed with public business, which may include a motion for the adjournment of the House;
(2) at two o'clock on Thursdays, the Speaker shall interrupt the business without question put and the sitting shall be suspended until half-past two o'clock; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions, after which any business interrupted at two o'clock shall be resumed;

(3) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; and
(4) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to a quarter to three o'clock in Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), to half-past three o'clock in Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions) and to twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall remain unaltered.
Meetings of Standing Committees (No. 1)—
That, with effect from Monday 11 th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
Meetings of standing committees:
Standing committees shall have leave to sit at any hour and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, subject to the following provisions:
(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of one o'clock and half-past three o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meeting of standing committees); and
(b) on Thursdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of half-past eleven o'clock and half-past twelve o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) with the substitution in that paragraph of "half-past eleven o'clock" for "one o'clock" and "a quarter to twelve o'clock" for "a quarter past one o'clock".
Meetings of Standing Committees (No. 2)—
That, with effect from Monday 11 th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
Meetings of standing committees:
Standing committees shall have leave to sit at any hour and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, subject to the following provisions: on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of one o'clock and half-past three o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meeting of standing committees).

Mrs. Beckett: The motions on the Order Paper are designed to put before the House the unanimously agreed report from the Select Committee on Modernisation, which contains recommendations for an experiment with our sittings.
I bow to no one in the House in my respect for its traditions and its history, but I recognise that institutions that fail to change are institutions that die. Certainly the work of the Modernisation Committee itself has been undertaken—or so I thought until a moment ago—very much in the spirit of the best traditions of the House: seeking, if not always finding, common ground; respecting the different experience and different views of others; but nevertheless exploring proposals for change. That was the general spirit of the Committee, and I hope that it will also be the spirit of an informed debate.
Let me begin by identifying the areas where there is undoubted agreement underlying both the work of the Committee and the report before the House. First, I hope that it is entirely clear to everyone that the proposals which the report enshrines do not envisage the House sitting for fewer hours than we do now. Within the same


number of hours, the Committee considered whether there are ways in which we can use that time and address our work more effectively.
Secondly, the issue of how this place might work more effectively is the overall and underlying theme of all the work that the Committee has undertaken, including that reflected in its previous reports.
Thirdly, apart from the specific proposals on which the House will be asked to decide tonight, it is hoped that, today and later, hon. Members will examine other issues, such as the operations of the Main Committee in the Australian Parliament, which might contribute to further thinking about the effectiveness of our own methods of parliamentary scrutiny and debate.
That proposal for an alternative forum for debate reinforces the point that I made at the outset: the proposals are not about reducing the work or the hours of Parliament. That idea—raised today only to encourage debate, not for decision—is intended to make available more time and opportunity than now for both scrutiny and debate.
Taking the proposals in the report as a whole—those put forward for decision today and those put forward for debate—the House will see that, far from proposing a reduction in the work of the House, if we pursued all these ideas, there might be both more effective use of time and more time.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The right hon. Lady has been at pains to explain that the number of hours that the House works will not be reduced. Will she tell us, frankly, whether she is satisfied that the opportunities for Back Benchers to hold the Executive to account will not be reduced as a result of the proposals?

Mrs. Beckett: Absolutely and categorically. Although the proposals for a Main Committee are not before the House today for anything other than discussion, should the House so choose, they would actually offer more opportunity for scrutiny and debate.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the right hon. Lady imagine that the proposed Main Committee would sit concurrently with the House or at a different time? If it sat concurrently, when the House was dealing with main business and legislation, the House would be even emptier than it sometimes is already. If the Main Committee sat at a different time, Members of Parliament would have even less time to deal with their correspondence and their constituencies than they have at present.

Mrs. Beckett: No doubt, in the fulness of time, the House will consider those matters and take them into account. I am not an expert on them; the Committee's extensive discussions on them took place before I joined it. In one Parliament that has tried that procedure, the outcome was not that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: According to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who just intervened, the House should hold no Committee meetings—whether they be Select or Standing

Committees—while the House is sitting. That is totally illogical. The Modernisation Committee's proposal for a main Committee provides major new opportunities and is the most important part of the report.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.

Mr. Jenkin: The suggestion by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is utterly ridiculous. We must clearly strike a balance between the number of Committee meetings and hon. Members' duties outside the Chamber and responsibilities in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman claimed that as many Committee meetings as possible should be held outside the Chamber because they have been effective in the past. That is a ludicrous extrapolation.

Mrs. Beckett: I did not think my hon. Friend said that. However, as I said before, I am confident that the hon. Member for North Essex has read the report and will contribute to the debate if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I turn to the specific proposals put forward for decision today. First, I remind the House that the context of the proposals is provided by the earlier reports of the Modernisation Committee approved by the House, which should promote more effective use of the time that we spend in the scrutiny of legislation, for example. Most recently, the House agreed to proposals on scrutinising European Union business that will allow wider and much more effective scrutiny than in the past.
Last Session, we carried the Committee's proposals that more Bills should be published in draft and receive pre-legislative scrutiny. In this Session, for example, I hope that we shall make use of a Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill and that other Bills in draft will receive other forms of pre-legislative scrutiny.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: If I must.

Mr. Bercow: The right honourable Lady referred to the opportunity for improved scrutiny of European Union legislation. Presumably she is not seriously suggesting that the House will have a better opportunity to scrutinise the judgments of the European Court of Justice.

Mrs. Beckett: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was either not present or not listening when the proposals for scrutiny of European legislation were advanced. If he had been, he would be well aware that the proposals put forward by several Select Committees—and finally by the Modernisation Committee—extend the areas of scrutiny to the other pillars that were not within the ambit of the scrutiny procedures originally before the Committee. In consequence, not only is a wider area available for scrutiny—including scrutiny of legislation that comes from the Commission—but we have established a different Committee structure to facilitate more effective scrutiny.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Before we get bogged down in an argument about the scrutiny of European


Union business, I—as someone who spent long hours on the Opposition Benches arguing, night after night, about the common market—remind my right hon. Friend and the Tories that, one dark night, the then Tory Government decided to change everything. They stopped me and my old mate Bob Cryer and some others from arguing the toss about common market legislation night after night—we often kept them up until 3 or 4 am. The Tory Government, backed by most of their Back Benchers who are in the Chamber today, walked through the Lobby against me and my old mate Bob Cryer and sent all the common market Orders upstairs into Committee. At a stroke, the Tory Government stopped our scrutiny of the common market. I hope that we will not have any bouts of hypocrisy from that lot opposite this afternoon.

Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's hope, but I doubt that it will be realised.
The House also passed proposals to carry over some Bills from one Session to the next. That should enable us to make better use of time for Committee scrutiny in June and July when most of the Bills that we hope to finish during the Session should be out of Committee, and it will enable more steady progress to be made with Committee work as well as with other aspects of legislative scrutiny.
All the proposals give Members a much better opportunity to scrutinise legislation and contribute to the legislative process at a much earlier stage. That should mean not only that legislation will be of higher quality, but that it may need less amendment, particularly less late or unforeseen amendment.
The proposals for an experiment in our hours of sitting should be judged against the background of what should be better handling of legislation, less hurried processes of legislative scrutiny and less likelihood of ill-thought-through proposals coming forward in a rush and needing vast amendment to make them effective.
The existing procedures of the House can be and are criticised in various ways. For example, and with due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), although I hate an early start and prefer to operate later into the evening, I am well aware that the House as a whole is not at its best in the small hours of the morning. It is a fair criticism to say that the longer we go into the later parts of the evening and the small hours, the less progress on scrutiny, and the less effective progress on scrutiny, we often make.

Caroline Flint: I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention a booklet called "The work of an MP", which is available in the Library, which says:
By the time a Member finally gets to bed it can sometimes be nearly time to begin the next day's work.
The booklet then asks readers whether they think they would be fit enough to become an MP and suggests that they use the House of Commons Gym. Would it not be better for us to have improved hours of work, so that we would not have to go to the gym when we are here?

Mrs. Beckett: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, even though, as I said, I prefer to work late at night rather than early in the morning. I recognise that there are hon. Members present who have served even longer than I have, but I speak as someone whose service in the House spans 24 years, five of which

were spent as an Opposition social security spokesman at a time when there was an extraordinary amount of legislation before the House. On the basis of that experience, I can say categorically that, once we get into the small hours or even late into the evening, progress on legislation slows down, people stray from the point and their concentration wanders. Far less work is done and it is done far less effectively.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly not give way on that particular point to hon. Members who are comparatively new to the House, because lengthy experience drives one to the conclusion that late-night sittings are not an effective way for the House to conduct its business.
I understand the concerns of those who feel that, their own or their staffs patterns of work having been adapted to the present patterns of debate, the proposed experiment in bringing forward our hours will cause problems. The underlying dilemma of how to juggle conflicting pressures and demands is perpetual. It is not created by the proposals, and views both on the dilemma and on its solution vary from Member to Member. Many of us believe, however, that the proposals may contribute to more measured and better-informed debate.
The issue before the House with regard to the proposed experiment is not only when or for how many hours Members are in the House but whether patterns of work that grew up to suit the habits and, frankly, far lighter work load of earlier generations of Members now contribute to us sometimes wasting time in the House rather than making the best and most productive use of it.
That brings me directly to the votes before the House tonight. In its report, the Committee recommended unanimously that the House should be given the opportunity to vote on the proposal initially put to the Committee by my predecessor on behalf of the Government, namely that, on Thursdays, the main business of the House should begin at 11.30 am with questions; that to observe the rule that Standing Committees do not sit during Question Time, they should commence their proceedings at 9 am rather than 10.30 am as at present, and that the moment of interruption of the normal day should be 7 pm rather than 10 pm as now. Since these proposals first came before the Committee, several concerns have been raised about the implications of the alternative timings. Two other proposals were thus considered by the Committee.
The first was that the parliamentary day should, as in the original proposal, commence at 11.30 am but that Question Time should be taken as now at 2.30 pm and Standing Committees should sit as now at 10.30 am. The Committee gave this proposal extremely careful consideration. Those who preferred to make no change at all in the timing of Thursday sittings nevertheless felt that the second proposal would clearly mean less change and hence less impact of change, which is incontestably true. However, as with all such proposals, there are other knock-on effects.
The parliamentary day itself would be disjointed. The debate would have to be interrupted for questions and, because Thursday is the day on which the business


statement is made, adjourned for an undetermined period. Many members of the Committee doubted whether that was a preferable outcome. In particular, given that the underlying purpose of making any such proposal was to make more effective use of parliamentary time, this disruptive method of conducting the day caused particular concern. The uncertainty made that proposal less popular with the Committee than the original one.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that the right hon. Lady will be fair to the House. It is important to establish the fact that the Opposition on the Committee, comprising just four members, made it perfectly clear that while both propositions should be put to the House, they would not support the proposal that Standing Committees should sit at 9 am and that questions should take place after prayers at 11.30 am on a Thursday. Will the right hon. Lady therefore confirm that, while she has sought to highlight the fact that the report was not, as it were, contested, the main Opposition on the Committee made it perfectly clear that they could not support Standing Committees sitting at 9 am and questions other than at 2.30 pm, which is the present tradition and custom?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did indeed fully intend, and do intend, to make that quite plain, although I might not have put it in quite this way had he not said what he did. I am not seeking in any way to misrepresent the views of members of the Committee.
It is also right that the House should be made properly aware of the fact that the representatives of the principal Opposition party on the Committee made it plain not only that they did not support the proposal that Standing Committees sit at 9 am, but that they did not support the alternative proposal for the House to sit at 11.30 am and then adjourn, with questions at 2.30 pm. It was suggested in Committee that they had no intention of voting for that proposal, should it come before the House, so it will be interesting to see whether they vote for the amendment that they have tabled.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the proposal that Standing Committees should sit at 9 am was not supported by all members of the Committee, and at no point did I intend to convey the impression that it was.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been a Member of Parliament for 20 years. We have had these arguments down the years. Tory Members of Parliament have repeatedly opposed the idea that the House should meet in the morning. The reason is simple—they have interests in the City which they want to pursue, and they do not want the House to meddle in their private commercial affairs. For once we should grasp the nettle.

Mrs. Beckett: The reasons for the concerns that hon. Members express is a matter for them, and I expect that we shall hear some of them today. I certainly recognise the variety of concerns of different hon. Members about such proposals. Undoubtedly, Conservative members of the Committee did not support either the proposal for Standing Committees to sit at 9 am, as the hon. Member

for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) correctly said, or the proposal for the House to meet at 11.30 am and adjourn at 2.30 pm.

Mr. Winterton: I hope that the right hon. Lady is also prepared to admit to the House that, although the main Opposition—the Conservative and Unionist parties—on the Committee were not happy that the House should sit from 11.30 on Thursday mornings, they were reluctantly prepared to go along with it. We were also supported by representations made to the Committee by Madam Speaker—the information is in the public domain, so I may quote it—and a subsequent letter from the Chairman of Ways and Means on behalf of the Chairmen's Panel, of which, as the right hon. Lady knows, I happen to be a member.
I say to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that I have been in the House for 28 years and, like him, have been a Back Bencher throughout. I hope that, in many ways, I reflect the interests not only of Back Benchers but of the House in the standard that I have maintained.

Mrs. Beckett: It is clear that many Opposition Members disliked the proposal for the House to sit from 11.30 am but felt that its doing so, with questions at 2.30 pm, was a better bargain than it sitting at 11.30 am and Committees beginning at 9 am. It is also clear that they did not intend to support either of those options for change at that time. Indeed, it should be clearly on record, lest there should be any misunderstanding, that the proposal for the way in which the decision should be put to the House was agreed by the Committee.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will get on.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon): rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I shall of course give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady, but I find somewhat strange her statement that some members opposed absolutely any movement on the proposal to sit at 11.30 am. We were willing unanimously to agree the report because the alternatives to sitting at 11.30 am were clearly set out in the report. If we had all opposed any proposal to sit at 11.30 am, we would have opposed the report. The right hon. Lady should not therefore claim that I would oppose the concept of the House sitting at 11.30 am. There was an overwhelming desire of the majority to move in that direction. The Committee was trying to ensure that that could be done in the way that most benefited the House.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. There is not so much difference between us in our recollection of what took place in Committee. The manner in which the decision was to be made was very clearly discussed. Representatives of the Conservative party recognised that the proposal might—it is still very much


"might"—be agreed by the House, and preferred other options, but that did not necessarily mean that they would vote for such proposals.
The third option concerned the entirely different issue, which was raised in several quarters, not least by Madam Speaker, of whether the Committee had examined the very different sittings pattern of some other Parliaments. That reminds me that I did not deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield about Madam Speaker's views. He will be as conscious as I am that those views were expressed by Madam Speaker at an early stage, before the Committee had discussed matters with her, and are on record from that time. We took careful account of her concerns and of the alternative proposal that came from various sources, including from Madam Speaker, for a different sittings pattern which I can most easily describe as block weeks, whereby Parliament would sit for a specified period of weeks and would then have a non-sitting week.
The Committee asked the Clerk to draw up a potential schedule on the same underlying premise as the experiment that had previously been considered—that the House should sit for as many hours as it does now, and that it should do so without changing the broad pattern of the parliamentary year as we know it. On that basis, the potential schedule was intended to give us an illustration of what block-week sittings would mean. As the House can see from the report, they would be a move away from the pattern of sittings that has been developed since the cross-party Jopling report almost 10 years ago, and would also increase the periods of no effective scrutiny.
Our examination of the alternative proposal suggested that a complete reconstruction of our entire parliamentary year, including the pattern of our recesses and of the party conference season, would be required for such a proposal to be practicable. The Committee did not feel able to recommend that to the House at present, although some members did find attractive the option of revisiting the parliamentary year. It did not seem to be an experiment that could readily be given an early trial in the House, as it gives rise to much more fundamental considerations.
The ultimate view of the Committee was that the House should be given an opportunity to consider whether it wanted an experiment along the lines originally proposed by my predecessor. Further, it was recommended that if such a proposal were defeated, the House should have the chance to fall back on the variation represented by keeping Question Time at 2.30, although with an 11.30 start in the Chamber, rather than being able to fall back only on the status quo. That decision on the proposed experiment, in accordance with the view expressed by the Committee, lay behind the motions tabled by the Government, on which the House is invited to participate in a free vote. I shall return to the subject of the vote shortly.
I shall touch on two other issues. First, the Committee proposed that, within the pattern of the experiment, consideration should be given to providing a non-sitting week around mid-February, because of the heavy load that all hon. Members carry during the Session from the Christmas to the Easter break. Again, the intention was not to diminish scrutiny and debate overall. Clearly, it will depend on the progress of business whether we can suggest a move along those lines this year. In general terms, many hon. Members would find it helpful for the

effective planning of their work if they had the flexibility to undertake other commitments in a non-sitting week during that period.
Secondly, the Modernisation Committee's first report last Session recommended greater flexibility about when Standing Committees could meet and, in particular, that they should be allowed, as are Select Committees, to meet when the House is not sitting. The present report repeats that recommendation, and suggests that a period in September could be designated for meetings of Select or Standing Committees, if their members so choose. Again, the proposal is intended to provide greater flexibility and effectiveness in our parliamentary work.

Mr. John Butterfill: The right hon. Lady says, "if their members so choose." In the case of Select Committees, it is clearly the choice of members whether they meet in September. With regard to Standing Committees, the Government would take the initiative. How would they consult members of Standing Committees to see whether they wished to meet in September?

Mrs. Beckett: Through the usual channels, as I envisage it. Lest there should be any doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind, may I say that that was a unanimous recommendation from the Modernisation Committee in the previous Session, before I was a member of the Committee. As I understand it, the proposal was not envisaged as an instrument that the Government might use to force Standing Committees to sit at other times. A number of hon. Members were expressing the wish for greater flexibility in the operation of Committee weeks, and the recommendation was intended to give expression to that thought.

Helen Jackson: In that connection, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the points that has been frequently raised with us—in the Chamber and as members of the Committee—is that there would be an opportunity in parts of the summer recess to table, and perhaps receive answers to, parliamentary questions? At present, that element of scrutiny is seriously lost for a significant part of the year.

Mrs. Beckett: There is no doubt that the Committee's thinking was that that would create the possibility, should hon. Members want to make use of it, of enhancing the scrutiny available to them during that period.
I want to say a little more about the on-going work of the Committee and in particular about the proposal to which I alluded earlier—for a body analogous to the Main Committee in the Australian Parliament.
Today the House is not being asked to experiment with a parallel forum or Main Committee, but the Committee seeks the views of Members and their initial reactions to the discussion of these ideas already undertaken. Such a parallel forum might be a Committee of the whole House which would sit apart from this Chamber, which any Member could attend and which might meet at the same time as the main Chamber of the House, but only to discuss agreed business and non-controversial matters. Any matter that became the subject of dispute could not be decided, but would return for decision to this Chamber.

Mr. Hawkins: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the report mentions the difficulties in terms of media


coverage of Committees. Does she agree that, if there were to be a Main Committee experiment, it would be crucial to ensure that media coverage of debates was commensurate with traditional media coverage of debates in the Chamber? Does she also agree that, with reducing media coverage of significant business even in the main Chamber, there are dangers that the media might concentrate on the trivial at the expense of the important?

Mrs. Beckett: Again, those are matters that can be explored by the House. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that anyone envisaged that any forum in the House would be discussing the trivial, although there might be greater opportunity to discuss in more depth some of the serious issues for which there is not always as much time as hon. Members would like.
The initial work done by the Modernisation Committee suggested that uncontroversial Bills, Adjournment motions, Members's daily Adjournment debates and debates on Select Committee reports all might be suitable for being taken in a Main Committee, which would perhaps free up time on the Floor of the House and would certainly provide more opportunity for scrutiny and debate.
One other minor reform—which I might, on another occasion, recommend to the House, and should mention for completeness—is that we might provide for Lords messages about Bills to be received when the House is not sitting. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that the other place already has such provision for messages from this House. An effect of making parallel provision would be that Lords Bills and Lords amendments could be printed and made available to Members of this House earlier than is sometimes the case at present. It would certainly avoid delays, if the sittings hours of the two Houses were different, in messages being received from the Lords. I am considering that issue and may table a motion to create a similar, reciprocal structure to that which exists within the House of Lords.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but I have taken a number of interventions. Before I finish, I must say something about the timing of the debates, how I intend to vote in a free vote and what I recommend to other hon. Members who support modernisation and want an experiment for change in our procedures.
I am sorry that an amendment has been tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). As Madam Speaker has pointed out, it will be voted on before the recommendation put to the Committee by the Government. I am particularly sorry because the Committee agreed, as it says in the report, that we should put the Government's proposal to the House and—to avoid there being no option other than a return to the status quo should that be defeated—that the alternative of the House breaking for Question Time at 2.30 pm should then be put to the vote.

Mr. Pike: Does not the way that we are voting mean that we unfortunately have to eliminate the compromise, because the main proposal would otherwise be eliminated? Is it not unfortunate that we are doing things that way round, because it is exactly the opposite of what the Committee wanted us to do?

Mrs. Beckett: It is of course a matter for hon. Members to decide how they vote, but my hon. Friend is correct that

the Committee envisaged at that time that the proposal to break was preferable as a fallback for the House to consider—to agree to or to reject as it chose—than having only the option of the Government proposal and the status quo. The tabling and selection of the amendment for debate reverses that.
Since the production of the Committee's report, and since seeing today's Order Paper and hearing of Madam Speaker's decision, I have given careful further thought to my own view and to what view I would recommend to the House. I am very sorry indeed to have to say that the moving forward of our decision in such a manner—by those who, as we are all well aware, do not support and indeed resist a proposal for change—places us all in a dilemma.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, my remarks are almost at a close.
I am sorry to find myself in such a position, but I am so concerned that the option to which the amendment would give force might bring the experiment into disrepute—and might lead to its termination rather than to its success—that I fear that I must vote against the amendment. I recommend that every hon. Member who wants our procedures to be modernised and wants change that might be effective in respect of better completion of our work take the same view. I am sorry to have to say that—there appeared to be other possibilities—but that seems to be the position.
I end as I began, by recommending to the House that we conduct an experiment by bringing forward our Thursday sittings. We all know that there are strong views in the House on that matter, and that there are different views. I hope that those different views will all be treated with respect, but it appears that those of us who want the experiment to proceed should vote against the amendment and for the sittings of the House (No. 1) motion.

Sir George Young: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members from both—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot move the amendment at this stage. We must deal with motion on the Order Paper first. When we come to the next motion, he may move his amendment.

Sir George Young: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can see advantage in the way that the votes will take place.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment is to the first motion, not to the second. Presumably, as the first motion has been moved, the amendment has to be moved to that motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are currently dealing with motion No. 3 on the Order Paper, concerning the approval of the Committee's report, which is not the motion to which the amendment refers.

Sir George Young: There is some merit in the way that the votes will take place. It will enable the House to


decide which of the two alternatives it prefers before going on to decide whether it wants change. The amendment allows the House to take that decision, which might have been denied to the House had we approached the matter in the other way.
I begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, both the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who chaired our initial deliberations on the subject, and the present Leader of the House for the way in which they presided over the Select Committee. They both had to cope with a wide range of sincerely held views on the Committee, reflecting the differing interpretations of the role of a Member of Parliament and of the appropriate allocation of available time for our duties.
Some of those differences could be traced back to the different dates of entry of Members into the House, some to the fact that Opposition Members understandably have a perspective different from that of Back-Bench Government supporters'. Other differences were due to some members of the Committee having additional responsibilities in the House. Some have constituencies in or near London and others do not, and some Members have their main office here and others have it in their constituency.
Those varying perspectives of members of the Committee drove us to different conclusions. The Select Committee is not directly recommending this change, as is clear from paragraph 72 of the report. We had a lively but manageable debate. None the less, if I were running a dating agency, there are some combinations that I would seek to avoid.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, although Labour and Liberal Members from the 1997 intake were members of the Committee, no Conservative Members from the 1997 intake were on the Committee? Therefore, he cannot deduce from the evidence of the debate in Committee that people's views were related to their year of entry; they were rather more closely related to the party that they represent.

Sir George Young: I stand by the proposition that I asserted. If the hon. Lady analysed her Back-Bench Labour colleagues she would find a similar difference in interpretation of the role of an MP according to date of entry. That different perspective is not confined to those on the Conservative Benches.
I also commend the Clerks on their work, particularly the section on the Main Committee. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) for providing coffee on a Wednesday morning.
I start by making three general points which provide a framework for the debate. I am concerned at the loss of influence of the House of Commons in recent years. I want to see that decline reversed, so I ask: are these proposals likely to assist in that objective?
Let me read a quotation:
Our Parliament may have its quirks and faults, but it is hard to find another country today whose Parliament is so central to its national life. In Britain, Parliament is where things happen. It is the voice of the people of Britain, fighting out all the complexities of our national issues which in some other countries are settled in smoke-filled rooms.

That was said only two and a half years ago in June 1996 in a speech to the Centre of Policy Studies by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), then Prime Minister. I honestly do not think that the Prime Minister could say it today.
Parliament is not central to our national life. The papers have stopped reporting it, the radio has reduced its coverage, Ministers increasingly bypass it, and until recently, Labour Members were sent away from it. We even debar ourselves from discussing some of the live issues of the day.
At best, the proposals before us do nothing to address that central issue which ought to be at the heart of the Select Committee's agenda; at worst, they may even add to the problem, which brings me to my second point.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: As someone who has served in the House for rather a long time also, I should say that the picture that the right hon. Gentleman paints of a golden age in 1996, described by the then Prime Minister, bears no resemblance to the experience that most of us had either then or for many years before it under the leadership of that Prime Minister and his immediate predecessor.

Sir George Young: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously assert that during the past 18 months there has been no change in the role of Parliament in our national life? If so, he is in a minority.
The proposals received a terrible press in July, for which the Government have no one to blame but themselves. The proposals before us originate from the Government and have been through the Select Committee, and it was the Government who launched them on the public before the Select Committee even discussed them.
On 1 July, The Independent quoted the right hon. Member for Dewsbury as saying of the package of changes:
It reduces the pressure points during the session and adjusts the arrangements to make them more family friendly.
That led to the headline:
Extra family time for overworked MPs".
The Daily Mirror used the same quote from the right hon. Lady to prop up its headline:
Four days a week for MPs".
The Evening Standard had the same quote:
MPs set to spend more time with the family".
Even The Guardian said:
Reform plan offers MPs longer break at week-ends".
BBC On Line said:
MPs to get more time with families".
As I said, all that happened before the Select Committee even considered the proposals. So far from the reforms helping to elevate the status of the House, the way in which the Government presented them made that task harder.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is not one of the problems facing the House the fact that this is a House of Commons matter, yet we are considering Government proposals? With no disrespect to the Leader of the House, for whom I have great admiration, I am not sure that I believe that the Committee should be chaired by a member of the


Government and Cabinet. That is the problem. We are debating Government proposals which the Government want to get through when it should be entirely a House of Commons matter; proposals should be put forward by the House of Commons through the Modernisation Committee.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend tempts me way beyond my negotiating brief, but I shall touch upon his point in a moment.

Helen Jackson: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee in its early stages when it published its first report on the legislative process, but does he agree that the recent report is totally in line with the basic principles agreed unanimously after much argument and debate—not on party lines—and that the Modernisation Committee was about improving the way in which Parliament carries out the legislative process and the way in which it is presented? Because of the sensitivities, the Committee said:
Our approach is to recommend various options to be tried out always on an experimental basis.
That is what the Modernisation Committee is doing. It has been working on a cross-party basis, and if the right hon. Gentleman is saying that that will no longer operate, people outside the House need to know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak. We do not have all that much time and if interventions continue at this rate and at this length, many people will be disappointed.

Sir George Young: I revert to the point that I was making. The Select Committee learned a lesson, which was that we should present any proposals for change on the basis of enabling us to represent our constituents more effectively, not to spend more time with our families. The Opposition's press notice last week was a wiser one, with no references to anything friendly or familiar; none the less the media simply looked up the previous coverage and panned the proposals.
My third point relates to that just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Caroline Flint: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: No, in the light of Mr. Deputy Speaker's injunction, I want to make progress.
These recommendations come from a proposition that emerged not from the Select Committee but from the Government. Of course, they are not to be condemned because of their source, and they should be judged on their merit. But any Select Committee, and particularly the Modernisation Committee, will want to develop its own agenda and not just accept the Government's. The Jopling proposals came from within, not without, and went ahead with all-party support. The House of Commons should control the Executive, not the other way around, particularly on this sort of issue.
Against that background, I come to the proposals for Thursday and my amendment.

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, the Jopling proposals came forward on an all-party basis, but it was the Leader of the House of

the day who put forward the proposals. Those proposals, which most hon. Members will feel have improved the work of the House, would never have been carried through had it not been for the fact that we, as the Opposition, overrode the concerns of our traditionalists who did not wish to see that modernising step. We had the courage to grasp the nettle and support the Government, even though it was argued that the change was in the Government's interests. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman cannot do the same.

Sir George Young: I am not prepared to override my hon. Friends' objections, because I share them.
The Government proposition that we are now debating is in appendix 1, paragraph 11. I should have preferred a much more rigorous analysis in the paper of the then Leader of the House—first outlining the problem, and then relating the solution to the problem—but none was forthcoming. To substantiate the proposal that there should be no whipped business after 7 pm on a Thursday so that hon. Members can get back to their constituencies for a full Friday, the Government should have outlined how often votes after 7 pm currently occur. In the previous Parliament, there were two such votes between the Queen's Speech and dissolution. Between 13 March 1998 and the summer recess, it happened three times. Since we returned from recess, there have been no votes after 7 pm on a Thursday.
The disadvantage of the proposed turbulence in the morning, in which moving forward the sittings of the House will disrupt activities currently occurring in the morning—a matter to which I know other hon. Members wish to speak—is not counterbalanced by a corresponding benefit in the evening. The problem of hon. Members having to stay in the House to vote after 7 pm is a minor one that could have been dealt with through the usual channels. The entire foundation on which the argument for change is constructed is, therefore, essentially a weak one.
Under the Government's proposals, hon. Members also will not know whether they can get away at 7 pm, as the Government's offer relates only to whipped businesses. There could be business after 7 pm, announced the previous Thursday, in which hon. Members will have to take part, whereas they had thought they would be able to get away. The House will therefore face the paradox of rising early on a Thursday so that hon. Members can get to their constituencies, even on those Thursdays when the House will sit the next day.
The case against change is a more powerful one and is made primarily in paragraph 62. The proposed change would allow less time to apply for private notice questions and statements. Statements will also be made in the middle of the day, at lunch time. There would also be the problems that Madam Speaker mentioned in her letter. Moreover, it is not true that hon. Members are currently inactive between 11.30 am and 2.30 pm on a Tuesday. That work will still have to be done—it would be displaced, not abandoned.
I should like to dwell for a moment on the final reason listed in paragraph 62. The Procedure Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is in the process of establishing the reduced pressure on the House, as certain matters will no longer be debated in this place but in assemblies and a


Parliament elsewhere—the so-called devolution dividend. If the House wants to consider greater certainty and less business on a Thursday evening, that would be the appropriate forum to do so, when we could consider the objectives that I understand Labour Members want to achieve without causing dislocation in the morning.
We have to consider the proposal also against the background of what has already happened in this Parliament to Thursdays—which is a factor that the Government have ignored. Moving Prime Minister's questions to Wednesday removed Thursday's main anchor. The 3.15 to 3.30 Thursday slot was always well attended—I think that it was as well attended at the Tuesday slot—after which many hon. Members stayed on for business questions. Subsequently, the Conservative party held its main Back-Bench meeting, at 6 pm, when business and whipping were announced. Votes were then held, at 7 pm and/or 10 pm. Thursday was therefore a card-carrying member of the parliamentary week.
Moving Prime Minister's questions to Wednesday has changed all that. The best way in which I can make the point is by referring to last week's all-party notices. There were four meetings on Monday 7 December; 20 on Tuesday 8 December; 16 on Wednesday 9 December; and only four on the Thursday, of which only one was in the afternoon. As for the Conservative party's own Back-Bench committees, there were six on Monday, five on Tuesday, three on Wednesday and none on Thursday. It is therefore as if one of the two walls holding up the parliamentary week has collapsed. The building is now listing and is held up by one wall instead of two, compressing ever more business into Tuesday and Wednesday.
The proposition before the House will make a difficult situation worse, by further eroding Thursday. The proposition makes it explicit that Thursday will end earlier than the other weekdays.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir George Young: Yes, but for the last time.

Mr. Hawkins: While my right hon. Friend is reflecting on the changes to Thursday, will he once again recognise that the change to Prime Minister's Questions was announced unilaterally by the Prime Minister? That change has added to the lack of scrutiny of the Executive by the House and by the nation. Those of us who are traditionalists believe that many of the Government's changes have been introduced entirely to bypass such scrutiny.

Sir George Young: I very much regret that the change was made without consultation. I remember, when replying to the first debate on the Loyal Address under this Government, deploring the change.
If there is to be change—the House may have gathered that I do not favour change—I prefer the option that will do the least damage to Thursday: which leaves Standing Committees to meet at 10.30 am and not 9; leaves questions, private notice questions, statements and business questions where they are, at 2.30 pm; and does less damage to the rhythm of the parliamentary week. The reasons for choosing the option are stated in the report, in the section containing the views of Madam Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means.
My preferred option involves splitting a Thursday by having questions in the middle and not at the beginning. We could have two half-day Opposition days or a couple of debates on different subjects on either side of questions. Last Thursday, for example, there was one debate on alternatives to prison and then another one on the new deal. Those debates could have been held on either side of Question Time without doing any injury to our procedure.
Other hon. Members may want to develop the case for the Opposition amendment, particularly those who have the responsibility of chairing Standing Committees and are worried about the implications of starting at 9 am for them and for the staff of the House.
I should like to say a very quick word on the Main Committee—a subject that deserves a debate on its own on another occasion. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm in her reply that there will be such a debate. There are some key questions about the Main Committee. What will be the impact on the Chamber of the establishment of a Main Committee? Are the lessons of Main Committees established by other Parliaments applicable to this one? Is it the right response to the challenge that I outlined at the beginning of my speech—of restoring the status of Parliament in the life of the nation? Is it the right response when other constitutional reforms are under way, specifically reform of the second Chamber? Those are the key issues that have to be addressed in relation to the Main Committee.
I should like finally briefly to mention future work. Two duties are performed by Parliament. The first is the legislative process—implementation of the manifesto, and changes to the legal framework of life. The second is the holding of Government to account—interrogation of Ministers, scrutiny of their Departments and audit of expenditure. Much of the Select Committee's work has been focused on the first duty, as demonstrated by its proposals on carry-over of Bills and on Standing Committees meeting in September for pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that, in the interests of balance, the future agenda will focus on the second function—scrutiny.
When the right hon. Member for Dewsbury held my job, she said:
Parliament does not anymore hold Ministers properly to account".
There are many ways of dealing with that deficiency, some of which are mentioned in appendix 4 to the memorandum from the Liaison Committee. I am interested in taking that agenda forward. The details need not be sorted out today. However, I believe that our agenda should be refocused on the responsibilities that I have outlined.
I hope that the House will not agree to the changes proposed by the Government. However, if it does want change, then change as proposed by my amendment would be the better way forward.

Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): I really do not think that Conservative Members, particularly those who served on the Modernisation Committee, have helped themselves by the way in which they have conducted this debate. I say that for the very simple and straightforward reason that, although Committee members recognised that Conservative Members did not want change, we both acknowledged


and respected that position. However, we also knew and believed that it was our duty to take them along with us whenever we could, and that is what we tried to do.
For Conservative Members now to speak in this debate in a manner designed to undermine the proposed change sends a clear message to me and to all my colleagues—that we who represent the majority view in the House and who believe that the modernisation of Parliament is essential if we are to preserve this historic institution in which we believe so strongly will have to modernise Parliament, with Conservative Members adding minority reports to our work. That is, in effect, what they have done today. It would have been more honest, more straightforward and more simple if they had done that at the very beginning of the process.
Opposition Members should remember that a majority of the House favours reform, and that we have always tried to work by consensus. It is up to not only the majority party but the minority party—in this case, the Conservative party—to prove that it is prepared to work towards a consensus. It takes two to make that bargain and stick to it.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, the purpose of the reforms is to make Parliament—not the Government—more effective. That is what we set out to do, although the point has been lost in part of the debate. The fact that some of the press coverage of the lengthy report focused on one or two statements about family-friendly practices says more about some of the briefings that went on, and, sadly, a lack of journalistic effort to understand what the report was about, than about the proposals.
I was pleased, as were all members of the Committee, that Madam Speaker made it clear that, although she had reservations about some of the changes, she and her staff would do everything possible to make them work. We also want to place on record our thanks to the staff of the House, who will also seek to make the changes work. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) talked about the disruption that starting at 9 o'clock in the morning would cause to the staff. I am puzzled about why the argument is always put that way around. It would be possible to comment on the inconvenience to the staff of finishing at midnight. The argument is not that simple. Why are Conservative Members so anxious not to sit in the morning? There are several answers, some of which have been suggested.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: From my limited experience as a former member of the Chairmen's Panel, I believe that it is wrong to ask the Clerks of the House to come in as early as 7.30 in the morning to prepare for Committees. It is difficult enough to travel to London early. They sometimes have to work late. We should be considerate to the staff because they give us such excellent service.

Mr. Soley: That is the hon. Lady's point of view, but it is normal in society to go to work in the morning and go home in the evening. That is a standard working practice which is common in Parliaments throughout the world. I hear and understand what the hon. Lady says,

but it is not like that in the rest of the world. I am not suggesting that we have to be like others; I am just saying that we are different.

Ms Oona King: I am a Member of Parliament now, but I was a member of the staff once. I used to have to leave this place at ridiculous hours. That is unfair. It discriminates against anyone who wants to be in the real world and have a real life. On a more serious note, on one occasion when I left work at 2 o'clock in the morning, I was attacked on my way home. That would not have happened if I had had normal working hours.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: No. I want to make progress, because I know that many people want to speak. I hope that the hon. Lady catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let me put the issue in context. The Government have embarked on a major programme of constitutional reform. I appreciate that the Conservative party does not like that. We are reforming the House of Lords, local government, regional government and the government of Scotland, Wales and London. As a result of the work of the Modernisation Committee, we have already improved the scrutiny of European legislation. We shall have to do more such work. The suggestion that the workings of the House of Commons cannot be reformed is ludicrous. Going on like that will destroy this institution.
I have said many times that the House of Commons has a famous reputation around the world. It gained that reputation in the 19th century and the early part of this century. It began to lose it after the first world war, because many other countries copied us, but they jumped ahead whereas we stood still. The Conservatives would go on standing still if they could. It is up to the Labour party, with, I suspect, the support of the minority parties, to ensure change.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: I shall make a bit more progress and then I shall give way.
People outside do not understand why we have late-night sittings. Most people know that it is common sense that good legislation is not made late at night and that the Government cannot be held effectively to account then. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire talked about Parliament being a proud part of the tradition of the previous Prime Minister. I remember, as does he, how the Conservative Government organised their business so that much of it came up late at night when it would not be noticed. We were told that that was supposed to be Parliament acting more effectively. The Conservative Government slipped unpopular measures through after midnight when there would be relatively little questioning and the issue would not get into the media.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is putting up an Aunt Sally. We are not


debating late-night sittings; we are having, I hope, a civilised discussion about two alternatives for Thursdays. Late-night sittings do not enter into it.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman must have missed part of my argument. I was talking about people not understanding our late-night sittings. That is an important issue which is related to morning sittings. Conservative Members protest that we have Committees in the morning. One of the problems that we have to face is that the work of the Committees and the expectations and work load in the constituencies have increased. One reason why the Chamber is frequently nearly empty is that we have a lot of other Committees. What are we going to do about that—abolish the Committees? We have to think more radically and jump over that to come to other solutions.
Many people wonder why uncontentious debates take place on the Floor of the House, often with only a few people present. When they look down on the Chamber and see only four or five people, they ask what is going on. We need to address that. Many people question the unpredictability of Members' commitments, particularly on Fridays. In any democracy, a Member of Parliament cannot guarantee being in a particular place at a particular time. Democracy ought to be unpredictable to an extent; however, it is nonsense to think that we cannot tell people whether we can be present elsewhere on a Friday. Members of the Canadian Parliament can say whether they can be in their constituency months in advance. They can deliver on such a promise in all but the most extreme circumstances.
We also rightly complain about the lack of media coverage of this place. I have regularly been the first to point out the problem, and shall continue to do so, but we do not do our case any good by arranging our debates so that Back Benchers—those who are not members of the Government—do not have a cat in hell's chance of being reported in the media after 5.30 pm. I entirely agree with Madam Speaker and others that we cannot shape the Chamber around the needs of the media, but it is absurd to go to the other extreme and take no account of those needs. I want Back Benchers to be able to make speeches that are noticed in the media. That can happen, but we need to change, as well as the media.
The debate about the use of time in the House has bedevilled us for years. There were arguments under the previous Government about how to change the hours of the House of Commons. Even they recognised that legislating in the early hours of the morning was not a convincing practice for the public. The debate about time is more sophisticated than it seems, because it also involves what subjects need to be debated on the Floor of the House. Only by addressing the problem from that angle can we begin to deal with it.
The proposal for a Main Committee or alternative Committee—we can call it what we will—is important. I urge hon. Members from all parties to consider the proposal and examine how it works in Australia, Canada and one or two other places before deciding whether we should use it here. If the vote tonight goes as I hope it will, the Modernisation Committee will continue to examine the issue. Any proposals will have to come back here for approval. I believe that a Main Committee would enable us to do more to hold the Executive to account,

because there would be more opportunities for Back Benchers to raise many of the issues that are not currently raised.
One example that should appeal to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is that there should be more debates on Select Committee reports. Such debates and more Adjournment debates—not at midnight, but between the Minister and the Back Bencher in the Main Committee—might even get into the main regional news programmes on television and radio. Would that be a bad thing for Back Benchers? I think not; it would be a good thing.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman has been very persistent, but he had better be brief, as I am trying to save time.

Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is making interesting and worthwhile points, particularly about how the House might be better reported. My misgivings are that the previous Administration would never have dreamed of using their majority to impose their view on the Opposition on a matter of such magnitude as the timetabling of business in the House of Commons—with the exception of the guillotine. Our problem is that Britain does not have a written constitution. The one guarantee of the power of the House is that such reforms have always been on a strictly consensual basis. The Labour Government are using their majority to pursue a constitutional reform programme that could be described only as a form of elective Stalinism.

Mr. Soley: I have two brief points in response to that. First, if the hon. Gentleman really does believe that in 18 years the Conservative Government did not drive their business through, I must say that they had me fooled for a long time. Secondly, there was consensus on the Committee, but it was broken today; that is a pity. The Conservatives have damaged themselves by that, because many hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted an agreement to be reached.

Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, are we debating Government business or House of Commons business?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order, but a point of debate.

Mr. Soley: I shall let it pass as largely irrelevant to the issues at stake, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) drew my attention to a fact sheet about the hours of sittings in the House of Commons over many centuries. Of course the hours have varied widely. This has probably been one of the longest periods in which we have not changed them. The House has sat on Saturdays and Sundays, in mornings, afternoons, evenings and at night. It was a flexible, changing institution. Sadly, the Opposition are now saying that we should not change anything, in remembrance of some golden age. However,


things are never quite what they were. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has changed, as has much of what we do. We have been left with a model of Parliament that is a less than adequate means of holding the Executive to account and of giving Back Benchers the rights that they need to do their work.
Back Benchers have many roles. They are expected to do much more in their constituencies than previously. They do much more work in Committees. I would like us to do more outside the United Kingdom. Only twice in my career have I been an observer at international elections. It is one of the best things one can do and the countries that are emerging out of authoritarian rule appreciate it, but we can fulfil such duties only if we consider the role of Back Benchers, set it in context and modernise our working times.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think is misleading the House, and he is not known for that. He is suggesting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to think about what he has said. I am sure that he did not intend to make quite that accusation.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman's remarks could be construed as not giving a fair interpretation of the Opposition's intentions. He is suggesting that, by agreeing the amendment, we would be going back on what was agreed in the Committee. However, without the amendment, the two points that were made in the Committee would never be put to the House because, if the first motion is agreed to, everything falls. The amendment is necessary to put the alternative before the House.

Mr. Soley: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not right. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman intervened, so perhaps he should listen.
More important, my general point related not just to the fact that the Opposition tabled the amendment, but to the tenor of their comments in the debate. I remember working hard in the Select Committee and sometimes being criticised by my hon. Friends, who will cheerfully refer to the stick that they gave me from time to time, for trying to get the Conservatives on board. Suddenly, I find what I suspected—that they would not stay with it. That did not surprise me, but I felt that I had a duty to try to take them with me. When they return to the Committee, they need to think more carefully about how they participate in order to give the Committee confidence that we can work on a consensual basis. If we cannot, as I said earlier, it will be better if we acknowledge that Tory Members will write a minority report and vote accordingly. There is nothing wrong with that and it would save a great deal of time. It is important to have said that, because the Tory party should not be allowed to get away with what it is doing today without comment.

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: No. I am about to conclude.
As I said in my opening comments, we have embarked on a major constitutional reform which is long overdue. We must also undertake a major reform of the House of Commons. On one level, I would quite like to say that we should make the constitutional change first and then reform the House of Commons, but that is neither realistic nor practical. Today, we are asking the House to try an experiment—no more than that. If that experiment works well, we will stay with it. If it does not, we can drop it, but the request is to try that experiment in order to modernise our proceedings in a way that the vast majority of hon. Members want and people outside expect. Above all, we owe it to the history of this place, which frankly was much prouder some time ago than it has been in recent years, and I blame the Conservative party for much of that.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I start by following the final remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) in trying to put our discussion in context. I was struck by the description of some hon. Members as traditionalists. I do not know who is owning up to being a traditionalist. It is certainly not exclusive to the Conservatives; indeed, one hon. Member is raising his hand; the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is not in her usual place today, is certainly a traditionalist. Some take pride in that, but what tradition are they seeking to advance?
As the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush pointed out, tradition is all over the place. In the 16th century the House sat in the mornings and had Committees in the afternoons. In the 17th century it regularly started at 7 am and sometimes even at 6 am and was fixed day by day. In the 18th century the House sat at 12 noon. That was changed to 3 pm and then 5 pm. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge—Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for pointing out that on one occasion the House met at 10 pm because hon. Members wanted to go to the Spithead Review. So ad hocery has been the name of the game.
At the turn of the century the House sat at 3 pm. That changed to 2 pm and then to 2.45 pm. During the war, in order to adapt to the special circumstances and to save energy, the House sat from 11 am to 6 pm—quite a normal working day. After the war, it started sitting at 2.30 pm with 9.30 am as a speciality on Fridays, and recently there has been some moderation around the middle of the week. We have only become set into a particular pattern in comparatively recent times, so I challenge the traditionalists to tell us which tradition they are seeking to follow. Anyone outside watching the debate will feel that the issue of when and how to meet on Thursdays is a storm in a teacup.
As the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush rightly said, we should be discussing the wider issues. I shall refer only briefly to the proposals for Thursdays, as I believe the argument is a red herring.
Incidentally, to demonstrate that the power of Prime Ministers has a long history, I can tell hon. Members that the House sat on Saturdays in the 17th century and continued to do so until Prime Minister Sir Robert Walpole abolished Saturday sittings because he wanted to secure at least one day's hunting a week.
The first paragraph of the report is the most important.
It says:
The purpose of reform is to make Parliament more effective. This means allowing Members to make the best use of their time, and to balance their various commitments in the House and its Committees with the increasing workload and demands of their constituencies.
The purpose of reform is not to reduce our work load, but to make it more productive. I hope that hon. Members from both sides of the House will agree that the Modernisation Committee has made some—albeit slow—progress. We have sought to find ways in which to achieve more effective scrutiny of legislation, as our previous reports—our principal work under the previous Leader of the House, to whom I, too, pay tribute—demonstrated.
We have also sought to make the Government more accountable. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that the power of Parliament had been reduced in the past 18 months and that we had been less effective in holding the Government to account. Where was he in the previous 18 years? He was in the Cabinet, so perhaps he did not notice what Parliament was doing. He certainly cannot have noticed what happened under the then right hon. Member for Finchley, who had an extraordinary perception of the role of Parliament, which she largely regarded as a rubber stamp.
The Thursday proposals are modest. On balance, I prefer option 2 to option 1, but I really do not mind. Let us do something about Thursdays, for goodness' sake. It is ridiculous for those who sit on the two Front Benches to spend all their time arguing about how we decide which option is better. It is absurd that we cannot treat two propositions equally and then choose between them. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will, in due course, consider how we should put different options on a level playing field, as happened when the House considered Sunday trading, for example.
Our yes-no procedures make it extremely difficult to adopt a balanced attitude to the options on Thursday sittings. Both have advantages and both have disadvantages, but they are both considerably better than the status quo. I want us, after this debate, to move on.
I wholly accept the other principal recommendations in the report. A non-sitting or constituency week in February would be extremely welcome, as long as we are given another week in which to ensure that we are not letting the Government off the hook. The same applies to the designated Committee weeks in September. Those weeks may coincide with the Liberal Democrats' party conference, but it would give me great pleasure as Chief Whip to have an excuse not to attend it for one day.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), to whom I pay tribute, drew our attention to the experiences of other Parliaments. A consensus developed in the Committee—across party lines and involving both newer Members and old lags—that it would be sensible to examine the procedures of the House in a Main Committee or second Chamber. Such a Committee would not remove the supremacy of this Chamber—far from it. It would ensure that we had more time to consider those issues that can be debated and decided only on the Floor of the House.
I hope that hon. Members have read the report. If they have, they will have seen the details of the 400 hours of discussion that could easily have been transferred into a

less formal setting with no reduction in accountability. That time would be better spent in scrutinising difficult legislation effectively and in considering private Members' legislation. The real bonus of a Main Committee would be that it would allow us to discuss all those issues that are crowded out of the House. A number of distinguished Chairs and former Chairs of Select Committees are present—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Chairmen.

Mr. Tyler: I take the view that Chairs may call themselves what they want. They could be Chairpersons, Chairmen or Chairlords for all I care.
It is important that the work of Select Committees sees the light of day and is given proper scrutiny. Each year, only about 12 of the 60 or 70 important Select Committee reports are debated—in limited time—on the Floor of the House. That is a scandal. A Select Committee report, despite all the hard work that hon. Members put into it, will have only a one in five chance of being properly debated.

Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster): The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Procedure Committee is examining the role of Select Committees, particularly in relation to financial procedures. If the Committee recommends a greater role for Select Committees, that would provide hon. Members with a further way in which to hold the Executive to account—scrutiny of the Executive would be enhanced if the Main Committee considered Select Committee reports.

Mr. Tyler: That is exactly my point. To have Ministers respond to the criticisms, concerns and anxieties of a Select Committee that has worked hard in examining the work of Departments would be an excellent way in which Back Benchers on both sides of the House could hold the Government to account.
If such discussions were moved into a forum that is more appropriate—not only in terms of the numbers who can easily participate in the debate, but in format—and if we followed the experience of other legislatures, I believe that hon. Members' doubts would soon disappear. While I was on holiday in Australia, I took a day out to go to Canberra to meet the Clerks and other participants in its Main Committee. The Speaker of the House of Representatives had been one of the biggest critics of the Main Committee when it was set up, but he had been completely converted—he believed that it had enhanced the reputation of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush mentioned the media. In Australia, the media are as likely to televise an intelligent discussion in the Main Committee as they are the often rather silly to-ing and fro-ing in the Chamber. For example, the specialist media found a discussion in the Main Committee on youth suicide was much more enlightening than such a debate would have been in the more confrontational atmosphere of the Chamber. I am not suggesting that such a forum would be a wonderful panacea, but the House should examine the idea carefully.
I give one example of how a Main Committee could make a major improvement to the way in which we handle our business. The Wednesday morning Adjournment


debates are very useful, but the maximum attendance is probably only 15 or 20. If those debates were held in a Main Committee, Ministers could still be held to account, but the House could use Wednesday mornings to consider private Members' Bills. That would be much better than using Fridays, which are a disaster—there are voting problems and great uncertainty about what will come up when.
It would be a huge advantage if private Members' Bills were considered in the middle of the week. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are pointing out that the Government would not like that, but I hope that Labour Back Benchers would like it. I know that Liberal Democrats would welcome the ability to have good debates on private Members' legislation instead of having them kicked into the end of the week. That would also allow us to be consistent in our Friday commitments to our constituents. I believe that most hon. Members want certainty in their parliamentary lives.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating no Friday sittings at all?

Mr. Tyler: Friday sittings can never be abolished because we may always need them for flexibility. However, our consistent approach should be that we only have them when we absolutely must and, I hope, by consensus—not just because the Government have got into a mess in the management of their business.
I do not want to state that the Australian example—or, indeed, the Canadian example—is a model that we must follow precisely, as there will be Westminster variations. Far more legislation is undertaken in the Main Committee in Canberra than would be appropriate here. However, there is one basic rule there that would be helpful—there is never a Division in the Main Committee. If the point is reached in any discussion where anyone at all calls for a Division, the matter comes back to the full Chamber. That is the right approach.
If, in a more consensual atmosphere—in a smaller, but still prestigious part of the building, with public and media access—we have the principle firmly established that those discussions take place without a Division, and that if a Division is called, it is automatically adjourned back to the Chamber, that would be a huge advantage.
The House of Representatives has been very careful to give the proceedings of the Main Committee equal status to those of the main Chamber. It is not just a Committee, or even a Grand Committee—it is comparable to the main Chamber. For that reason, the proceedings of the Main Committee are bound with the weekly equivalent of Hansard. The media and the public see the Committee in that way.
I wish to refer to the way in which we manage our business and its impact on access to the House. Some concern has been expressed about the extent to which the public can have access to the House, and the Thursday change could alter that. However, knowing that the public could come here on a Friday—almost invariably—would be a huge asset.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is quite clearly advocating no Friday sittings, other than in

an emergency. He wants Members back in their constituencies—so that they can then come back on a Friday to show their constituents around the House. Is that it?

Mr. Tyler: s: The hon. Gentleman may have difficulty in arranging visits from constituents during the week. I have never had that problem.
There are current proposals for August and September which would preclude the free access of our constituents to this House—a far more sweeping change than anything suggested in the report. Anyone coming from our constituencies in August or September is likely to be charged between £6 and £7 per head. Hon. Members may have experience of arranging visits of comparatively large parties to the House of Commons in August or September. We are not likely to be here, so perhaps some do not. However, for a lot of families, that is the only time that they can come here. It is the same for youth groups, although school parties tend to come during the school year.
The proposals which, apparently, have been approved—although they have never been before the House, as far as I am concerned—will lead to our constituents being charged for their democratic access to the Houses of Parliament. Few people will be able to afford the proposed £6 or £7 a head. If any hon. Member is concerned about public access, the proper target is not the report—it is somebody within this building who has apparently decided that the 20 per cent. of visitors who come here in August and September who are British citizens will no longer have free access.
In summary, it is unthinkable that a radical, reforming Government should modernise the House of Lords in this Parliament to make it more representative and more accountable for the 21st century and not make this place more accessible, more representative and more accountable.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) adopted a rather more leisurely tone than we have heard before in the debate. I am more relaxed than some hon. Members about whether we start Question Time at 11.30 or 2.30—it is not the crucial issue of our time, and we can take it sensibly. It is only an experiment, and, after six or nine months, we can look at it again. A number of experiments have been undertaken which have been changed as a result of our perception of them. We ought to, as it were, lower the tone of the debate, and get down to some sensible discussion of how we can improve our business.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) rightly said, we must look at the role of Back Benchers and how we hold the Executive to account. That is what is important—not whether we meet at 11.30 or 2.30 for questions. That is a minor matter. I have my own views—mainly because I have seen 11.30 questions at the end of a Session, and they were rather poorly attended. I accept that that is not a good analogy, and I will be interested to see how it might work. I am slightly in favour of continuing the present system.
Like many others, I work here on constituency matters. I have a large mail, and one should finish off one's mail quickly—first thing in the morning—so that the rest of


the day is free. That may make it difficult to have morning sittings. I chair three Select Committees, which makes it more difficult for me than for many others.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman asserted that we have had experiments before in this House, upon which votes have been taken and which have been subsequently changed. I must admit that I cannot recall one.

Mr. Sheldon: The Crossman reforms were undertaken—including some very silly ones—and a number were subsequently altered. We have seen that happen, and it will happen again. I have no objection to that.
I wish to comment on the role of the Member of Parliament with his or her constituency. My enormous advantage—and that of other hon. Members—is that I represent a constituency. I am the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—that is what I am known as. I am against lists, because I want to be responsible. I know full well that I can offend an awful lot of people, and it will not make much difference to my large majority. However, that is not the way in which I operate. I want every individual who walks into my advice bureau to lay their troubles to one side, and know that someone is looking after them. That individual approach is important. It is a question not of votes, but of responsibility.
The major problem of this Parliament is that there is a large majority, and the House of Commons is not designed for a large majority. It is not designed to have such a large number of people with nothing very much to do. I have been in 10 Parliaments—five in opposition and five in government. Admittedly—and unfortunately—I have not spent as long in government as I would have liked. Nevertheless, I have had an opportunity to see things from both sides.

Dr. Starkey: Could my right hon. Friend cite any Member of Parliament who has come to him and said that they had nothing to do?

Mr. Sheldon: I must apologise. I used that expression in the conventional sense of the House of Commons doing what it has always done—allowing Members to bring their views to the Prime Minister and leaders of the Government, and to alter the affairs of state. I am not referring to looking after constituents. Constituencies are important, but they should not take up so much of a Member's time. Duncan Sandys, who was accused of not visiting his constituency, said that he represented Streatham in Parliament, not Parliament in Streatham.
I am in my constituency every weekend—that is enough. Constituents can see me, and I can look after their affairs and respond to their correspondence. Nobody has accused me of failing to represent my area, and I am proud of that. That does not mean that Members should ignore their position here—this is where we were elected for. We are Members of Parliament—not councillors, who live and work in an area every day. That is their job. By all means let us converse about the big issues, but Members must not spend too much time on that.
There are 418 Government Members, of whom about 350 are Back Benchers. That is a very large number. In a normal situation, with 350 Government Members,

there are only 280 Back Benchers, and they have much greater influence and involvement. When they question a Minister, they have much more power. Now we have a problem, in that attendance in the Chamber does not reflect the voting in the country as a whole, because Back Benchers do not feel that they need to be here. I suggest that an important criterion for judging the success of any alteration is how it affects attendance in the Chamber. We shall see what happens at the end of the summer.
My predecessor, Lord Hervey Rhodes—a wonderful man, of whom I had an enormously high opinion—never used to have anything to do with his local authority. His advice to me was not to have anything to do with mine. That was possible in the 1950s and until the early 1960s, but much legislation now involves local authorities, because they get so much of their money from central Government. I now represent parts of two local authorities, and sometimes they disagree with each other, which creates problems for me, but I have to live with those. One has to represent the authorities in discussions with Ministers.
We must have an understanding of local problems, but not at the expense of our work in the House. This is a debating Chamber, in which issues facing the country must be argued. Poorer attendance means poorer reporting. We cannot blame the press for the empty Press Gallery when we do not attend ourselves. There was a time when The Times had a large reporting staff here in its own special room, and all one's speeches were reported; now it does not even report Ministers' speeches. Many hon. Members feel that they can exercise more influence through a letter to a prominent newspaper than by making a contribution in the House, and that is very sad.
The first priority is to impress on everybody the importance of the House of Commons. There is a wonderful quotation to the effect that the greatest ambition of an Englishman is to be elected as a Member of Parliament. With the change of "Englishman" to "Briton", I would accept that wholly. It was never my aim to be a Member of Parliament—that was far too lofty an ambition—but circumstances so fell out that I was fortunate enough to come here. I have never ceased to be astonished at my good fortune.
It is crucial to retain the elements of Parliament that have established our reputation all over the world. Whenever we travel abroad, an assumption is made, not out of deference to us, that we understand parliamentary matters well, because of our long history.
One of the important changes we have made is the establishment of Select Committees. I have been associated with them for well over 30 years, as a member or a Chairman. I well remember Michael Foot speaking against Select Committees and saying that they would detract from the House. To a certain extent he was right. There is no doubt that sending people upstairs to debate important matters means that they cannot be here in the Chamber, but there had to be some way of holding the Government to account; it was not enough to make a brilliant speech and hope to change policy, or to ask a question which could be dodged by a clever manipulation of words.
In a Select Committee, one can ask a question again and again, until the Minister or official is forced to give an answer. I remember my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, when he was in the Public Accounts


Committee, banging the table and saying, "I've only got one minute, and I'm going to get an answer, yes or no." Those asking questions in the Committee were given only 15 minutes, because there was such a demand to speak, as people realised that they were doing something important. The reluctant civil servant said, "Yes."
The battles are fought here, and the decisions must be made here, preferably with a large attendance, but it is difficult to hold the Government to account with a handful of hon. Members behind one. In a crowded House, one can have much more impact. That is what we must try to achieve.
The most important change that I support for Select Committees is, strangely, to put their proceedings on the internet. At present, reports are not put on the internet until corrections have been made, three weeks later. Minutes of evidence are not part of the functioning of the House. A Select Committee can get real answers from, say, the Home Secretary or the Governor of the Bank of England, and there is a bit in the press, but nothing in the House until three or four weeks later.
Uncorrected minutes of evidence should be put on the internet. I have arranged for that to be done overnight, if necessary. The reporters can do that, but we are tied down by questions of privilege. The newspapers, television and radio can use uncorrected minutes of evidence, but the House of Commons cannot. That is absolute nonsense. I am arguing with the legal people, and I have put some points to the various Committees and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has been sympathetic, so I am hoping for some change.
That is important, not only because the House can then consider that evidence at Question Time the following day, but because people can see what has been said, and take it as part of the political discussion of the day. When Chairmen and members of Select Committees appear on radio and television, they are a bit apprehensive about saying what was discussed, because they do not have the transcript. They know that what they say is not privileged, so they are careful. If they had the transcript, they could do exactly what the press and the other media do.
I want draft Bills to be scrutinised by Select Committees. That is important, because the Committees build up expertise that can be tapped. I know that we are putting enormous pressure on Select Committee members, but fortunately they are doing very well, and feel that, as the Opposition—if I may say so—are not doing as good a job as they should, part of the scrutiny is being done by Select Committees, and that is of enormous value to us all. Pre-legislation should go to Select Committees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush was right to say that we need to see reports of debates. On Main Committees, I have nothing against matters going upstairs, but I am a little uneasy about having a replica of the House of Commons. We used to have Standing Committees for regional affairs in which Ministers would respond, so one could argue the case for certain things happening in the north-west, for example. That system was quite popular. I do not know why it was dropped. Perhaps it was taking up too much

ministerial time. We do not want anything too overblown, but particular matters could be devolved to Committee Room 14, say.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent address, and bringing to our debate a balance and a knowledge of what goes on here. He has highlighted the importance of Select Committees, but does he believe, with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), that more Select Committee reports should be debated here, and if so, how can that be done?

Mr. Sheldon: As I was arguing, that could be a matter for one of the debates in Committee Room 14, but there may be other ways to do it. I have already told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I would like to see more debates on the Floor of the House, but, if that is not possible, debates in Committee Room 14 may provide an alternative.
In my 14 years as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have used part of my annual speech to ask other Select Committees to consider expenditure. If Select Committees considered expenditure and concluded that the Government had got it right, nothing more would need to be said, but the Committees do not consider expenditure. I understand the difficulties, because the issues are complicated and the accounts are set out in a way that is hard to understand.
However, with resource accounting, the process will be much easier. For example, child benefit and other expenditure will be entered as an element in resource accounting, and Government programmes will be expressed in terms of money, so that the relevant Select Committee can consider the programme and relate it to the amount spent. Select Committees cannot do that now, because the accounts are expressed in staff or stationery costs. If programmes can be examined by reference to their cost, that becomes an important issue to consider.
We are discussing a trial scheme, and the test of it will be attendance. If such sittings are well attended, I will support a permanent change, but if they are not, we will have to think again.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on his remarks. I found myself unable to disagree with almost anything he said. He is a man of great experience, and new Members should pay particular attention to his comments. I also congratulate the Leader of the House on the way that she acted as the Chairman of the Committee. She did so with charm and understanding, and she put up with one or two of us who might not be the easiest Members to control in a Committee. She did so admirably, and the House should recognise that.
We sometimes do not achieve a proper debate in the House, but in following the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I wish to highlight one of the issues he raised—the lack of attendance in the House. One innovation has reduced the numbers of Members attending the Chamber and the time that Members spend here: in every Member's office is a television set, so that we can all see what is going on in the Chamber. Members can sit in their offices, and do not need to be on the green leather Benches. Members have often said to me, "I saw


what was happening in the Chamber on the television, and I thought that I had better come in." They should have been here from the start, but unfortunately that modern and convenient asset has done much to empty the Chamber.
In future, I hope that the Committee will consider one simple change that would assist us in holding the Executive to account. We should ensure that written parliamentary questions could be tabled when the House is not sitting. They would not have to be answered every day, but perhaps they could be answered and published in Hansard once a week or twice a month. Members often want to be able to put questions to Ministers during, for example, the summer recess or the Christmas break. If bombing were to be carried out in Iraq and the House were not recalled, Members would have a hundred and one questions to put to Ministers. The Executive would not be held properly to account if those questions were not answered until 11 January. We should find a way in which written questions can be put and answered when the House is not sitting.
We have heard some argument to the effect that the Committee's report was unanimous, and that it was unfair of the Opposition to table an amendment. It was a unanimous report, but paragraphs 72 and 73 make it clear that there are two aspects for consideration. Motion 5, tabled by the Leader of the House, can be considered only if there is an amendment. The concept that motion 4 will be defeated is nonsense. Once it is passed, motion 5 falls, and the House loses the opportunity to choose between (a) and (b), but the Committee intended that it should be able to choose.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to have to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman, especially in view of his kind remarks about me, which I much appreciate. I have heard several Conservative Members muttering about choice, and it seems to have escaped their notice that, if the amendment they have tabled were to be carried, there would be no opportunity for the proposal in motion 4 to be put to the House. Only one motion can be carried, as one will knock out the other. The matter is quite straightforward.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that I gave way, because I wish to clear the matter up. The right hon. Lady appears not to be entirely au fait with the procedures of the House. If motion 4 were passed and no amendment had been tabled, the House would have no opportunity to consider the alternative, because every other motion would fall. However, if the amendment to motion 4 is put, the Government are in a clear position to defeat it, and then motion 4 will be put—as the right hon. Lady desires—unamended. That is as simple as can be.

Mrs. Beckett: indicated dissent.

Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but which point does she not understand? If the House wishes to consider the possibility of questions at 2.30 and Standing Committees not meeting at 9 am, the only way in which that can be done—given the procedure adopted by the Government—is to defeat the Government's first motion.

Mrs. Beckett: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, what the Government did was give effect to the

decision of the Committee, which was that, first, the House would consider the experimental proposal by the Government. If that were defeated, the House would consider the alternative. I can understand it if Conservative Members have thought better of that proposition, but they assented to it in Committee, and that is why the Government have tabled the motions as we have.

Sir Peter Emery: I have—[Interruption.] If I may continue, I must tell the Leader of the House that, if that is what she was saying, the Select Committee was misled. [Interruption.] I should like to finish. I can deal with only one intervention at a time. The Committee was determined to ensure that two options should be available to the House. If I had believed that we would not be able to debate the alternative, and that the Government would table the motions in the way they have, I would have objected to the whole report.
The Committee went to great lengths to ensure that two options would be available. My colleagues on the Committee certainly took the view that we should have the opportunity to allow the House to vote on which alternative it wanted. That was my interpretation.

Mr. Tyler: I have not signed the Official Secrets Act, so I do not think I am betraying any great confidence by saying that I put a proposition to the Committee when it appeared to have reached an impasse. I proposed, simply, that, once the two options were before the House, we should be able to deal with them sequentially, so that there would be a clear choice.
That is precisely what the Leader of the House has done. She has put the main recommendation of the Committee on the Order Paper. If hon. Members think that the second motion is better, they may, quite simply, vote down motion 4, and vote for motion 5. All that those on the Opposition Front Bench, and one or two curious allies, have done is try to reverse that process. I cannot think it a sensible use of our time to argue that point. Let us get on with the debate, and then we can decide on alternative 1 or alternative 2.

Sir Peter Emery: I have never had a high opinion of what the Liberal Democrats say about the right way of dealing with things. It is immensely important to understand that, without the amendment being tabled, the House would have had no chance to show by a vote the number of hon. Members who want the alternative rather than the Government's option. To anyone who believes, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) appears to do, that we can vote down the first motion, I can only say, "Come into the real world." The chances of defeating a Government motion are negligible.

Mrs. Beckett: With the greatest possible respect to the right hon. Gentleman—and with a promise not even to attempt to intervene on him again—may I remind him that, as members of the Committee will be well aware, Opposition Members so little supported the notion of an experiment that they were not going to vote for the proposition at all? How the opinion of the House would have been reflected in that way, I do not know.

Sir Peter Emery: I did not attend the last meeting of the Committee, but there was no doubt that the majority


wanted to change to meeting at 11.30 am. I accept that, and, as a pragmatist, I know that there is no way in which that change can be defeated.
The House has not even started to consider the difficulties of the Government's motion. Standing Committees would meet at 9 am. It is all very well to say that people go to work in an office or something like that at 9 am, but the preparation of the work of Standing Committees is pretty rushed for the Clerks even if they are to be ready for a 10.30 am start. Any amendments tabled up to the closing of the House the night before must be marshalled, got to the printers and prepared for the Committee. If that is to be done in the morning before the Committee sits, the staff will have to come in not at 9 am or at 8.30 am, but at any time from 6 am. Does that make sense? Are the Government really happy to force that on our staff? It is wrong.
No one has considered what the Government motion means to the way in which the House operates.

Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: This must be the last time.

Dr. Starkey: I am a little behind hand, but I was trying to find a reference in the report. The right hon. Gentleman has talked of the difficulties for staff in preparing for Standing Committees. Can he confirm what paragraph 50 of the report says? It makes it clear:
If the standing committees were to meet as early as 9.00 am, we think it would be desirable to impose an earlier cut-off time for the timetabling of amendments, so that the papers for a Thursday morning meeting could me made generally available on a Wednesday evening.

Sir Peter Emery: I understand that that is a simple statement, but what would the hon. Lady do if a Standing Committee sat until 7 or 8 pm? Could there be an earlier cut-off time? The Committee would not be able to discuss amendments that had arisen from debate if that were so. I do not see that that makes any sense at all.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It would reduce the power of the Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: It would, as my right hon. Friend so rightly says, reduce the power of the Committee.
Let me turn to what the proposals mean to the work of the House. If we meet at 11.30 am on a Thursday, questions will run until 12.30 pm. We shall then have the business statement, which will run, under normal circumstances, until about 1 pm or 1.15 pm. Is that the moment at which Ministers or Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will wish to stand up to make the main speech on the debate of the day? Will they want to do that in the middle of the lunch hour? Is that sensible? Is that what people want? Is that what Ministers really want? I do not think so. It has not been fully thought out
.
The amendment would simply make it certain that our Standing Committees can continue as normal from 11.30 am until 1 pm.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Ten-thirty.

Sir Peter Emery: From 10.30 am until 1 pm. If we began at 11.30 am, we could have the main speeches of a

debate. We could then break for questions at 2.30 pm, having had our Standing Committees meet as normal. After that, any statement could be made.
That does not alter the revolutionary factor of change. It has been suggested that the amendment is an attempt to defeat the whole modernisation of the House. It does no such thing. It ensures that the House can operate more sensibly and reasonably, for the convenience of hon. Members. When it was suggested in Committee that the Conservatives were always against change, I reminded hon. Members that I spent my 14 years as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure trying to drag procedures into the 20th century, never mind the 21st.
The Jopling Committee was Conservative led, and proposals went to it rather than the Procedure Committee, so that senior Labour Members could deal with them. That Committee was unanimous, but its recommendations were delayed for two and a half years—not by the Conservatives, but by the then Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party, who objected to any modernisation and change. The Conservative Government could have forced change with their majority, but they chose not to do so, because the Conservative party has always believed in carrying the vast majority of the House rather than forcing procedural change over substantial opposition.

Mr. Derek Foster: The right hon. Gentleman labours under a grave misapprehension. He and I have been in this place a long time, and he is immensely experienced. We sat together on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry when God was a lad, and he was a distinguished Chairman of the Procedure Committee. However, I must tell him that it was not the Deputy Chief Whip who frustrated him. My deputy was acting on my authority, as I was the Chief Whip at that time; I conceded only when it was obvious that my party would win the election, and that it would be to our advantage to have shorter hours. I thought that that was a good negotiating posture.
I have immense respect for the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, and I urge my younger colleagues not to dismiss them as though they were being made by a man who does not know what he is talking about. The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about these matters, and we should listen carefully to him.

Sir Peter Emery: I am most grateful to the former Labour Chief Whip, who is equally distinguished, and a man of great character. A man who can get up and take the blame, which is normally passed on to his deputy, and say that it was him and not the deputy, is a man worthy of great respect. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that the only reason for Labour's agreement was party political is to admit more than I would ever have suggested was behind that agreement.
Let me now discuss the possibility of having a Main Committee or some other Committee. After many years here, I believe that any action that detracted from the importance of the House—the Floor of this Chamber—must be deprecated. However, having said that, I believe that we have to find another way of dealing with some of the mass of matters that—because of pressure of time and because we do not want to sit after midnight so that everybody can speak—are not currently debated, especially reports of Select Committees and the individual private Members' motions that were once a feature of Fridays in the House but have now disappeared.
I acknowledge the possibility of a Main Committee, as long as it does not detract from the Chamber, enabling a whole host of matters which are no longer debated by the House to be considered. If that is what would happen, the proposal is worthy of close consideration.
I finish rather as the Leader of the House finished. The right hon. Lady said that she found it most difficult that the Opposition had tabled an amendment to her motion; and that it was with some sadness that she had to advise the House to vote against the amendment and for her motion. May I suggest that, if there had been no amendment, she would have urged her colleagues to vote for her motion—motion 4? I believe that she would have done so.

Mrs. Beckett: indicated assent.

Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Lady nods. If that had been the case, the House would never have had the opportunity of deciding whether the arguments that I have advanced ought to be tested in a Division.
In an early-day motion, 48 hon. Members—a considerable number—have urged that the House should not move away from having questions at 2.30 pm. It is interesting to note that, almost without exception, the Chairmen's Panel perceives no terrible difficulty being caused to the modernisation by holding to 11.30 am and 2.30 pm. I urge hon. Members to think much more fully, not about the glib party political aspects, but about the working of the House. It is the working of the House in which I am interested. If it is passed, the motion will not help the working of the House—in fact, the reverse is true.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I hope that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) accepts that all of us are concerned about the working of the House; it is just that we have different opinions about how to make the House work best.
I sat through the start of the debate when Opposition Members were making great play of the fact that the public should have respect for Parliament. I agree, but have to tell them that they are completely out of touch with the public. The public would not find it unreasonable that people should sometimes be asked to come to work at 7.30 am. The reason why doing so in London is difficult is that the vast majority of people in London are coming to work at precisely that time. The public do not find it reasonable that the House should habitually work in the Chamber from 2.30 pm to 10.30 pm, or beyond; nor, if they realised it, would they find it reasonable that sometimes debates are kept going artificially until 10 pm, because hon. Members—on both sides—are attending important dinners and cannot get back until 10 pm.
The public would not think unreasonable the notion that both staff and Members of Parliament have families and family commitments. I know that one member of the Committee is fortunate enough to have his spouse here, but most of us are not in that position.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Would the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Dr. Starkey: Certainly.

Mrs. Winterton: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. May I ask, first and foremost, on what

she bases her research into what the people out there want? I have not had a raft of letters suggesting that we should come to work at 9 am.
Secondly, if she and other hon. Members wanted a nine-to-five job, perhaps they should not have stood for Parliament. It is the greatest honour to represent constituents in this place; it is a way of life and not just a job.
Finally, I should like to point out that I did 12 years as a wife living in the constituency and bringing up children—the best job that any woman can do. I was able to do that while my husband was a Member of Parliament and, subsequently, I was able to join him in Parliament. Perhaps hon. Members should think of their constituents first, rather than their own way of life.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is in danger of becoming a little personal. It is better that the subject is dealt with in the round.

Dr. Starkey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that I acknowledge that my constituents mostly talk to me about matters of direct concern to them; but when they talk about Parliament they find it extraordinary that we work in a way that is completely alien to the workings of any other organisation in the country. The way in which we work does not enhance my constituents' respect for Parliament. Most members of the public would find it extraordinary that hon. Members should suggest that lunch time is an immutable event that occurs between 1 pm and 2 pm; that no change can be accommodated; and that it is more important than the efficient working of the House.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said, the Modernisation Committee's report and the Committee's raft of previous recommendations have all been aimed at ensuring that the House works more effectively. The recommendations relating to draft legislation, the scrutiny of European legislation, the conduct of debates and setting time limits on speeches to allow more hon. Members to participate are all designed to reform parliamentary procedure so that we can be more effective. Procedures should be designed to be helpful: that is what they were designed to be, but the House has changed and procedures need to be changed too; they should not make life more difficult or make it more complicated for Members of Parliament to participate in debate.
I agree that the essential job of a Member of Parliament when at Westminster remains to legislate, to scrutinise and to hold the Government to account. However, the way in which we do that needs to change, and the measures that the Committee has suggested would achieve that. A balance has to be struck between Members' duties here in Westminster, in their constituency and as people.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) appeared to attempt to outline the job description of a Member of Parliament. All hon. Members do their jobs in different ways, which is absolutely right. We are accountable to our electors for the way in which we balance our activities. I do not think any hon. Member should set down a pattern of activity balancing constituency duties with parliamentary responsibilities in Westminster, and imply that every


hon. Member should follow it. My right hon. Friend quoted the aphorism—which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned frequently in Committee—about Members of Parliament being at Westminster to represent their constituencies and not in their constituencies to represent Westminster. That is an aphorism, and repeating it often does not make it true. I do not think it is true, as I believe that Members of Parliament have dual roles.

Mr. Sheldon: I agree that that saying is often repeated, but I quoted the original.

Dr. Starkey: I understand that. My constituents believe that the role of a Member of Parliament is twofold: first, hon. Members must represent their constituencies; and, secondly, they should represent Westminster in their constituencies and form a vital link between the two. If former Conservative Members who lost their seats at the last election had been more effective links, explaining to their constituents what was happening in Westminster, some of them might still be here.

Mr. Derek Foster: My hon. Friend is speaking total unmitigated rubbish. When the swing is against a Member of Parliament, it does not matter how good he or she is. My hon. Friend will realise that when she has been here a bit longer. Some superb Conservative Members of Parliament disappeared at the last election not through any fault of their own, but because the political swing was against them. Those of us who have been around a bit know also that many of my hon. Friends will not be here after the next election, no matter how good they are at their jobs. It has nothing to do with one's effectiveness as a Member of Parliament: I am afraid that it depends on the swing of the political pendulum.

Dr. Starkey: My right hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion.

Mrs. Beckett: I have great respect and affection for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the former Chief Whip. However, he will be as aware as I am that, although his remarks are true in the sense that many hon. Members of good record lose their positions in this place through no fault of their own, the kind of service to constituents that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) has just described is extremely pertinent in the case of hon. Members who represent marginal seats.

Dr. Starkey: I am grateful for the support of the Leader of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is entitled to his opinion. [Interruption.] I am afraid that you have not read the first report of the Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I assist the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)? I hope that she will not find it irritating to learn that we

try to address each other in the third person in this place. We say not "you" but "the hon. Member" or "my hon. Friend" or "my right hon. Friend."

Dr. Starkey: My right hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion and I hope that he will accept that I am entitled to mine. It is for others to decide who is right.

Mr. Derek Foster: One of my very good colleagues, the former Member for Keighley, who was killed in a road accident, always stood for a marginal seat—and did so from the Floor of the House. If I called a vote at 4 am to see who was here, he would always appear. He always won his marginal seat because he fought for it from this place. He did not return to his constituency as often as many of my colleagues returned to theirs.

Dr. Starkey: I do not find that argument particularly convincing. The evidence is in my postbag that my constituents appreciate—

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is wrong. The former Member for Keighley did not always hold his seat. He left this place and then returned to represent a different constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to delay the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West but I think it might assist the debate—for which there is limited time—if we made some progress.

Dr. Starkey: I shall move on to my next point, which I hope will not be quite so contentious.
Members of Parliament are also people. Whereas it was the norm 50 years ago that Members of Parliament were men whose wives stayed at home and looked after their families, that is not the case today. Fortunately, a considerable number of Members of Parliament are women and even more Members of Parliament reflect the more modern pattern of family relationships in which men and women share domestic responsibilities. It is not unreasonable that we should take account of that arrangement in the House. I do not think it is sensible for the Government to tell employers to take account of the fact that their employees are people with family commitments or to profess support for the family, and then expect individuals—men or women—to work the sort of hours that are completely inconsistent with their demonstrating any commitment to their families. Those points were rehearsed in the innumerable letters to the Committee as reasons for changing the parliamentary calendar, and the Select Committee report has attempted to respond to them.
I shall try to move on quickly. I wish to refute the assertion made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who opened for the Opposition, regarding the so-called "devolution dividend". I think it is a matter of debate as to whether the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly will reduce the volume of business that comes before the House. However, it is absolutely irrefutable that, although we wish to discuss a huge amount of business in this place, we do not have time to do so.
Select Committee reports are the most obvious example. Statistics show that only 10 per cent. of Select Committee reports are debated or simply mentioned


in debate. It seems to me to be a gross misuse of the enormous effort and expertise that is devoted to producing those reports that 90 per cent. of them are never discussed or referred to in the House. Notwithstanding the existence of the European scrutiny Committees, there is pressure for more time to debate European legislation on the Floor of the House. I understand that there are about eight times as many requests for Adjournment debates as there is time for them.
Ministerial statements are made about important policy matters. However, I would have welcomed a ministerial statement, for example, on the paper produced a considerable time ago about water charging. That policy has now been expressed in legislation, but a ministerial statement at that time would have allowed hon. Members to express their views about the paper well in advance of the introduction of legislation. That was not possible as there was severe time pressure on the business of the House and that subject was not deemed sufficiently important. Even if there is a devolution dividend, I think it will be more than compensated for by the huge amount of other business that the House will want to discuss. The so-called devolution dividend is a red herring.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that he was not fussed as to whether Question Time occurred at the beginning or in the middle of Thursdays. I am very fussed about that because it will make a huge difference. The proposal to move business on Thursdays forward by three hours en bloc while retaining its present order is designed to make the House work more effectively. Several hon. Members referred to the fact that Thursdays have been downgraded. I do not believe that that is because Prime Minister's questions have been moved to Wednesday. I think it is because, although Thursday business continues until 10 pm, we are mindful of the fact that hon. Members wish to return to their constituencies. There is therefore enormous pressure on the Government to schedule slightly less important business—if I may put it that way—for debate on Thursdays so that votes do not take place late at night. The consequence is that Thursdays are badly used.
The proposal put forward by the Leader of the House—that we move everything forward by three hours—would effectively recover Thursdays as sensible days for serious parliamentary business. That would reduce the pressure on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and allow us to have three full days of business in a week, which, in turn, would reduce the probability of the Government's having to timetable serious business after 10 o'clock, as occasionally happens on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. We would therefore be much more likely to finish at 10 o'clock on those days. We could deal with serious business—Government or Opposition—on Thursdays.
That is why the Conservative party's suggestion that we should have questions at 2.30 pm is effectively a wrecking measure to try to ensure that any experiment will be a disaster and we will therefore revert to the status quo.
Finally, there is no disagreement on the Committee about the fact that the House ought to be the pinnacle of our democracy and worthy of public respect, but those of us who want change believe that Parliament has to evolve if it is to retain that respect. With one notable exception in the 17th century, the tradition of Parliament has been to choose evolution, not revolution. These are evolutionary proposals and I strongly hope that the House will seize

the opportunity to move forward and evolve. Otherwise, it will remain pickled in aspic and become ever more distant from the public whom it purports to represent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No speech so far has been shorter than 16 minutes. It would be helpful if we could have shorter speeches.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). It is important in such a debate that every case be put. Although I fundamentally disagreed with every word that the hon. Lady uttered, it is important that her remarks should be on the record.
I am in my 28th year in the House and it remains today as big an honour to represent my constituency at Westminster as it was when I was first elected at a by-election in 1971. I had little expectation of preferment then and I have little expectation of preferment today. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House would admit that I am a House of Commons man. I have a view of my own and whatever side of the House I have been sitting on, I have never hesitated to put that view.
I say to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West that I believe in this House. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is highly regarded not only in his constituency but in the House and throughout the country, has said, our duty lies primarily here in the House to hold to account the Government of the day and to scrutinise as best we can the legislation that they propose. I believe also in my constituency duties and I work very hard in my constituency. That is why I have been returned, but my constituents expect me to represent them at Westminster, to act in their best interests and to try to hold to account the Government of the day—even my own, and I found that difficult enough.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) has left his place. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that I believe that the Modernisation Committee can work best if there is common ground between all its members, whatever their party allegiance. I therefore regret the aggressive and rather unfair presentation that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush made of the way in which Conservative members of the Committee behaved over the report and the tabling of the amendment.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who gave an accurate explanation of our action, which we took to ensure that our view could be voted on. If we had not tabled the amendment, the House would not have voted on our option that on Thursdays the House should sit at 11.30 am, Standing Committees should not meet before 10.30 am, and questions should be taken at 2.30 pm followed by business questions, private notice questions and ministerial statements. It is vital that the House vote on that proposal.

Mrs. Beckett: I am reluctant to take up any of the hon. Gentleman's time. He is right to say that we tried to proceed on common ground. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) is not here to speak for himself, I understand the


reasons for his concern. I remind the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and other Conservative members of the Committee that if we had not sought to achieve as much common ground as possible, Labour members of the Committee could have insisted that the option of having questions at 2.30 pm was not included in the report. It was included only in deference to those—the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for East Devon were among them—who expressed the view that it ought to be put before the House to find out whether hon. Members wanted to reject the option proposed by the Government.

Mr. Winterton: If a majority of members of the Committee had insisted that our option not be included in the report, there would not have been a so-called unanimous report; there would have been a minority report. Perhaps the right hon. Lady is saying that in future we should not seek to work through consensus and that there could be a series of minority reports. I would regret that, and I think that she would also regret it. The attitude and tone of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush led me to believe sincerely that that may be the only course of action that the Opposition can take in trying to ensure that the House's view, as against that of the Government, is properly registered.
I want briefly to address the issue of Standing Committees sitting in September. During the debates in Committee, I felt that that would be an undesirable development. Although Select Committees can meet in September, that decision is made by all members of the Committee. If Standing Committees met in September, that would be a Government-driven decision which would cause difficulty for many members of Committees. As the Leader of the House knows, September is the favoured month for delegations to the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to visit countries throughout the world.
Speaking as a senior member of the Chairmen's Panel, I believe that the proposal would cause problems also for Committee Chairmen who voluntarily seek to manage the business of the House, which is a heavy responsibility that takes up a great deal of time. I hope that some of the newer Members will, when they vote, appreciate the problems that could arise from that proposal.
Part II of our report, which deals with the second, parallel Chamber or Main Committee, seeks to get a reaction from hon. Members and members of the public who are interested in the way in which the House operates.
Like the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I have been the Chairman of a Select Committee. In fact, I was the subject of a rather interesting rule of which the House had apparently no knowledge until it was applied, and I was not reappointed to that Select Committee in 1992. However, that is water under the bridge, and I lived to fight another day. As one door closes, another one opens. [Interruption.]The door might have been slammed in my face, but others opened, not least in that I now have the opportunity to chair the Select Committee on Procedure.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is right to say that not enough Select Committee reports are debated on the Floor of the House. Many of those reports

are very well researched, as the Committees take evidence from a wide range of experts. The House would benefit from the wider debate that could take place were those reports given greater exposure, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It is my view—a view shared by the right hon. Gentleman—that the only way Back Benchers from all parties can hold the Government of the day to account is through the work of the Select Committees. More time must be found to debate Select Committee reports, but like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, I agree that we should not take the focus away from this Chamber.
If we can learn anything from the parliamentary procedures and experience of Australia, I am sure that we will want to do so. If there is clear evidence that a parallel Chamber is an advantage, I assure the Leader of the House that I shall not stand in its way. In fact, I might well support it, but these are early days in that debate, and we have much evidence still to hear.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne now chairs the Liaison Committee with great distinction. What he said should be read and digested by all hon. Members, not just the newer ones—although the 1997 intake on the Government Benches might like to consider it. He outlined the true role and function of a Member of Parliament, and I am grateful to him for the tone and content of his speech.
I hope that it will in no way embarrass Madam Speaker if I quote Peter Riddell, the political columnist of The Times, who wrote in the section entitled "Week in Westminster" in The House Magazine:
Madam Speaker delivered a formidable, persuasive and multi-salvo broadside against the proposals for changing the hours for Thursday sittings".
As the Leader of the House said, I fully accept that Madam Speaker, in our valuable meeting with her, went on to say that if the House introduced changes, she and the staff of the House would do their very best to ensure that they were implemented successfully. However, I shall also quote from Madam Speaker's letter to the Committee in which she said:
It might well be sensible for the Committee to take evidence from House Departments in order to assess the implications properly
With one or two exceptions, the Committee took no oral evidence. I believe that that was a very grave error of judgment.

Mr. Butterfill: Was there any assessment of the likely cost of the changes? Before the House votes on the proposals, it is important that we know what they will cost the public.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend has only to read the report to see that no facts are given about the cost of the changes, and the Leader of the House made none public in her opening speech.
I hope that I shall not embarrass the Chairman of Ways and Means if I say that, at a very full meeting on this subject last week, Panel members of all parties were outspoken in their support for the arguments deployed by him in his letter of 21 July to the then Leader of the House. They made it perfectly clear that they were disappointed that the views expressed on behalf of the Chairmen's Panel had carried so little weight with the Government and the Committee.
The letter from the Chairman of Ways and Means stated that it was
the Panel's belief that there will be substantial inconvenience to members, Chairmen and staff if the House agrees to the Government's proposal that standing Committees should meet at 9am … an earlier cut-off time for the tabling of amendments, if implemented, will be a distinct disadvantage to committee members who often rely on the availability of Hansard covering the previous sitting.
I should point out to hon. Members who have not sat on many, or any, Standing Committees that when tabling amendments it is important to have an accurate report of what has occurred in earlier sittings. If we are to bring forward the cut-off time for the tabling of amendments, with everything that goes with it, the House will not only be inconvenienced but will not be able to hold the Government of the day to account in the way it should.
The Chairmen's Panel went on to say:
There appear to be obvious impracticalities about arranging the selection of amendments late at night or in the early morning … It is unrealistic to suppose that the hands of business managers"—
the Leader of the House is very much a business manager—
could be tied to the extent that sittings of standing committees after 7pm would be prohibited by standing orders, but the Panel would be exceedingly unhappy if the perceived benefits of bringing forward the whole parliamentary day on Thursdays were not to be extended to the members, Chairmen and staff of standing committees.
Standing Committee Chairmen might not only be caused considerable inconvenience, but would gain no benefit from the so-called improvements. They could not leave at 7 pm because the business managers would insist that the Committees continued to sit, as they can, after 7 pm. I want to make it perfectly clear that Standing Committee Chairmen receive no additional pay or responsibility allowance. They do their job out of love, affection and respect for the House. I have served on the Chairman's Panel for 12 to 13 years, and I greatly enjoy my work, which I believe is a valuable contribution to the work of the House.
As I said, we are also concerned about the proposal that Standing Committees should have the freedom to meet during recesses. I have dealt with that subject, but it is vital that the House should understand the problems that could occur if that proposal went ahead.
We are talking about the House's ability to hold the Government of the day to account. As I said, I am a House of Commons man. I have not adopted the position that I have in order to frustrate the Leader of the House or the Labour Government. I believe fervently in the integrity of this House and in the need for Members of Parliament to be able to do their job properly. I have a nasty feeling that these proposals may well be the first step towards the creation of a professional, career politician, working what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West would describe as normal working hours—that is, 9 to 5. That is not the role of Members of Parliament.

Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that I have never suggested in the Select Committee that this House should work from 9 to 5? Will he kindly withdraw any suggestion that I might have made such remarks?

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Lady should look at tomorrow's report of this debate. She has talked of the

normal working day. Working from 9 to 5 is a normal working day. We do an exceptional job; it is not normal, but it is vital to this country's democracy. I plead with Labour Members to think very carefully about what they are doing. They will not always be in government; they may sit on the Opposition Benches in future. I was very concerned about the Jopling proposals. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) is absolutely right to say that the change of rules and procedures played entirely into the hands of the Labour party, which clearly knew that it would form the Government after the 1997 election. Let us not make the same mistake again.

Mr. Martin Salter: I welcome the on-going work of the Modernisation Committee and its important and long overdue contribution to the national debate about how we modernise our political system, enabling it to serve us better in the next millennium. I give notice that I do not intend to take interventions, to speak for more than six minutes or to be as self-indulgent as some other hon. Members.
This is my third opportunity to call for a radical overhaul of procedures in this place. I speak now with a little more wisdom and experience than I could in my maiden speech or in the excellent debate in November on the Modernisation Committee's previous report, which gave us pre-legislative scrutiny, which we are piloting, and a far clearer, better and more understandable Order Paper.
In listening with care to hon. Members with considerably more experience than me, I am reminded of the advice that a very senior Labour Back Bencher gave me when I first arrived in this place. It went something like this: "When I came here, Martin, I was just like you—breathing fire and brimstone, wanting to turn the whole place upside down. Funnily enough, as the years went by and I found myself in a position to influence change, I somehow did not want to do so." I assure all hon. Members and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I remain a passionate advocate of change.
I support the recommendations in the excellent report and, of course, those in the motion, especially the ones to sit earlier on Thursday and to provide more flexibility for Standing Committee sittings. We have heard much about how much more the Committee could do and how it is important to provide more time on the Floor of the House to debate Select Committee reports. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, whose chairman, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—for whom I have great respect—I see in his place, I heartily endorse that.
We can go further still. We spend much time looking at early-day motions, yet they are no more than political graffiti. If the Main Committee's proposals came into force, would not it be possible for time to be made available to debate on the Floor of the House an early-day motion on a matter of some import to which, for the sake of argument—I am open to suggestions-50 per cent. of hon. Members lent their names? The Modernisation Committee is absolutely right to state that this process is evolutionary, that we must consider new suggestions and ideas and that, in many ways, we must return to the fact that this House once was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said, a truly flexible and changeable institution.
It is a matter of some regret that this debate falls on the one day of a family event—the Westminster kids club Christmas party—in the Houses of Parliament. Many of the recommendations are about family life and admitting that, perhaps, we should challenge the machismo culture of our politics in this place. I learned my politics on building sites, representing building and transport workers. I can deal in machismo politics, but that does not make it right. There is nothing to commend a Minister having to stand at the Dispatch Box throughout the night, following a full day's work in his or her Department, and somehow answering questions the next day.
I am reminded of something that occurred to me a while ago. If the IRA or some other terrorist group put a drug in the House of Commons water supply which made us tired and Ministers more irritable and less effective, it would be an act of treason which, until recently, carried the death penalty. Yet somehow in our procedures, we have enshrined sleep deprivation to the point of a constitutional requirement. That is nonsense. No business, private enterprise or rapacious capitalist, so admired by Conservative Members, would run his or her operation in such a way.
It is okay to have family life; it is all right for a Member of Parliament to be married or to live with someone and to stay married or living with someone. It is all right for a Member of Parliament to have children and know their names—hon. Members may take that any way that they like—and occasionally spend some time with them during school holidays. My commiserations go to colleagues from Scotland—the fact that the Whip on the Front Bench is Scottish has nothing to do with it—who are severely disadvantaged by the Scottish school calendar.
None of us takes great pleasure in the vultures of the press who circle over Members' private lives, although it is almost inevitable that the hothouse atmosphere in this place, the pressure of hours of working, the way in which we conduct our business and the confrontational nature of our politics will destroy family life.
Opposition to the very modest proposals among Opposition Members has something to do with non-family outside interests too. At one time, one could just about make a case for a Member of Parliament having business interests and other forms of income, but that is certainly not so now. My comments and criticism apply to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are well rewarded; more than twice the average white-collar wage comes our way—plus allowances.
The work of a Member of Parliament has changed. Statistics show that we deal with 50 times more letters and contacts than we did in the 1950s. If there is one thing that I have learnt in my short time in this place, it is that representing 70,000 people is a full-time job. If we have outside business interests, we cannot serve effectively our party in this place or in our constituency, our constituents, and our bank managers—our three masters.
Opposition to changing the hours of work has far more to do with the very comfortable commercial interests to which some hon. Members have become accustomed. It is about time we came clean, stopped the crocodile tears and the hypocrisy, agreed the recommendations and took this place into the 21st century.

Mr. John Butterfill: I am sorry that, to some extent, a party issue has developed in this debate. This should not be a party matter. We need to—and should—debate the subject free of party prejudice. I speak as a member of the Chairmen's Panel, which has tried to consider the measures objectively. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have submitted our views, which are shared by members of the Panel irrespective of party affiliation. Indeed, the amendment, about which hon. Members have complained, has been signed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). That shows that it is not just a party matter; nor should it ever be.
Much in the report is interesting. Some people think that members of the Chairmen's Panel are reactionary, that they are all old and smelly like me and that we will resist all proposals for change. That is not true. For example, I think that the proposal for a Main Committee is extremely interesting. It could free up time for debate in this place. Having been a Back Bencher all the time that I have been in Parliament, I know how frustrating it can be for Back Benchers to sit in the Chamber all night—sometimes all through the night—and still not be called to speak. If we could have more time for genuine debate in the House on matters of great importance, that would be an advantage, so I am keen to explore and take further evidence on the subject of the Main Committee, which could be a workable proposition for us.
Much of what we are about is designed not to release Conservative Members to do private work, as the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) suggested, but to reduce the time that we spend in this place and to give hon. Members more time in their constituencies. However, I share with the right hon. Member for Ashtonunder-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) the view that our job is essentially in this place.
In the 15 and a half years that I have been here, I have gone to my constituency every Friday, most Saturdays and some Sundays—although I try to keep Sundays as a family day—and I think that that is adequate. If I spent much more time in my constituency, my constituents might become suspicious that I was trying to ingratiate myself with them to get re-elected, and that I considered that a higher priority than doing the job that I was sent to do in Parliament.
What I have done so far has not been entirely unsuccessful. I know that my seat is relatively safe, but the swing against me at the last general election was less than half the national average, so I must be doing something approximately right.
Many of the proposals will make the work of the House much more difficult. I shall focus particularly on the idea that we should start Standing Committees at 9 am. As someone who chairs several Standing Committees, I think that that would be extremely difficult, for various reasons. Hon. Members have mentioned the problems that it would create for the tabling of amendments and for the work of the Clerks, who would have to get in very early to deal with the procedures of the day.
Although we Chairmen readily accept the load that is put upon us, we would have to get in well before 9 o'clock to prepare for the work of the Committee that day. I always get in at least half an hour before any Committee that I am chairing. I come in from outside London


every day, so that would be an additional burden to me and would mean that I had to travel in the rush hour, although that is not the main problem.
The main problem is that, if Committees sat earlier, many of the other activities in which we engage in the House would become virtually impossible. For example, I serve on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and on other Select Committees, notably the Unopposed Bills Committee. The Trade and Industry Committee, which used to sit only on Wednesdays, now usually sits on Tuesdays as well. On six of the eight Tuesdays in this parliamentary Session, the Trade and Industry Committee has sat on Tuesday morning.
It is already difficult for someone like me, who is on the Chairmen's Panel, to combine being a member of a Select Committee with my responsibilities on the Panel. If we go down the route proposed, it will become impossible.

Mr. John Burnett: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished Chairman of the Finance Bill Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit. Does he agree that the time up to 10.30 am on Thursday is crucial for preparation for that Committee? We rely heavily on outside experts, and their views often come to us that morning, immediately before the Committee sits.

Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I intended to refer to it, as well as to some of the problems of major Bills.
Some hon. Members do not fully appreciate how much preparation is necessary for the Committees, on the part not just of the Chairmen and the Clerks, but of the Back Benchers who serve on them and the Front-Bench spokesmen, who need time to prepare. We are compressing the parliamentary week in effect into almost three days, which means greater pressure to sit late, especially on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
If we have sat late in the House the night before, it will be a severe problem to meet early on Thursday morning. With such pressure on us, it will become almost impossible for any hon. Member to serve both on the Chairmen's Panel and on a Select Committee. Regrettably, some hon. Members will have to decide between the two, which we would greatly prefer not to have to do.
It is suggested that we would always be able to get away early on Thursdays, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out, that is by no means the case. Those of us who serve regularly on Committees, particularly those who are Chairmen of Committees, know that the Committees frequently sit well after the House has risen.
I carried out an analysis of the sittings of the Finance Bill Committee, which I frequently chair and on which I have served for most of the years that I have been in the House. Last year, the Committee sat one evening until 12.1 am. That was an exceptional Finance Bill Committee, because the new Government compressed the Bill into a short period. This year was more typical. On successive Thursdays, the Finance Bill Committee sat until 10.30 pm, 10 pm, 10.40 pm and 10.52 pm. On Tuesdays, we sometimes sat later. One Tuesday, we sat until 2.1 am.
Given that that pattern is likely to continue, especially for major Bills, a large number of hon. Members will sit late on Thursdays and will not get any of the supposed benefits of the reforms. I urge hon. Members to think seriously about the burdens that they will place on the staff of the House, those who run the Refreshment Department, those who serve the House in various roles and the costs of the House.
If we do that, we may find that the proposal that Standing Committees should not sit until later and the amendment is worthy of serious consideration and should not be condemned out of hand as a party move. It is certainly not a party move for members of the Chairmen's Panel. We feel that we have a debt to repay after many years in the House, and we try to make this place work as successfully as we can.

Mr. David Drew: I shall take careful note of your request to keep our remarks brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall speak for no more than three or four minutes.
The opportunity to speak in the debate is a form of catharsis for those of us who have sat on the Select Committee twice a week for the past six months to prepare the report. Some may feel that the report is a mouse rather than a lion—that comment was made in Committee by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Many Labour Members, and others, I hope, believe that the report is the start of other improvements in the House, rather than the beginning of the end, as some Opposition Members would have us believe.
The acrimonious tone of the debate this evening does not reflect the atmosphere in the Select Committee. In the main, we came up with consensus. Although there was always disagreement about when Question Time would be, I hope for unanimity on other parts of the report. Hon. Members should reflect that by trying to make the measure work, if and when it is passed.
The measure is part and parcel of the modernisation agenda, which is not about making this place less effective, but about making it more effective. We have two roles. First, many changes could be made to the legislative role to make Back Benchers more effective. The second role concerns how we scrutinise the activities of the Executive. If we are to get a Main Committee, the measure should go through. I pray that it does; if it does not, the Modernisation Committee will have to start again, because this is a stepping-stone process.
On that point, some of us would argue that the measure provides continuity rather than discrete change from Jopling. We were not Members of Parliament at the time, but Jopling saw the benefits of tidying up Thursdays, and the measure takes that to a natural conclusion.
There is a degree of bitterness and disagreement here, which was not the case in the Select Committee. I hope that we can wash some of that away and move on to the things that the House can do even better, if and when the measure is passed and we move on to the possibilities of a Main Committee and to the other issues that have been referred to, and on which I want to concentrate.
Statutory instruments are used increasingly to bring legislation into effect. That process should be opened up, and perhaps the Modernisation Committee would


consider that. The way in which Select Committees report, or fail to report, has been mentioned many times. The devolution dividend may bring real benefits to the Procedure Committee, and members of it are indebted to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is about to leave, for his chairmanship. The tabling of questions when the House is not sitting should also be considered.
All those things can follow, but if we do not pass the measure we will be back to the drawing board. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that many of us think that modernisation is needed. Conservative Members sit on the Modernisation Committee, although they may not want to call this modernisation. I hope that they will bear in mind the fact that there is overwhelming demand for change—not only from hon. Members, but from our constituents, who find some of our processes bizarre and impossible to explain. They think that the changes are to do not with being family friendly, but with the way in which democracy should be functioning.
I hope that we get the measure through and that we can sell it to people, rather than being told by the press that it is about taking extra holidays. It is about making this place more effective and making it work in the way that it should. I hope that there is less bitterness in the future.

Mr. Roger Gale: A change to sitting hours
needs to be considered in the light of its contribution to improving Members' ability to discharge their duties both to the House and to their constituents—scrutinising legislation, holding the executive to account and debating issues of national of local importance.
The author of those words tabled observations and objections to these measures under eight headings and in a personal comment. The author was Madam Speaker. Since she became Speaker of the House, she has made it her bounden duty to defend the interests of the Back Benchers.
I am deeply saddened that this has been turned into a party issue. It is not. Those of us who serve on the Chairmen's Panel—two of my colleagues have already spoken—voted unanimously to support the letter that the Chairman of Ways and Means sent to the Committee. Of all parties, we did so because we believed that these measures, if implemented as stated in the motion tabled by the Leader of the House, would damage the interests of Back Benchers and make it not impossible, but profoundly difficult, for the servants of this House, who serve us so well, to do their job.
Those of us who serve on the Committee regard our non-partisan position, and prize it, very highly indeed. I have served for six years as the chairman of an all-party group that was not, on occasions, uncontentious. It was my proud boast that party politics never entered into things, and that has to be true with members of the Chairmen's Panel. If we were seen to be in any way partisan, the Committees that we chair would rightly have no confidence in us.
I ask the House to accept that the points that I shall make are simple and totally non-party political. This is a political issue. The politics are about the right of Back Benchers on both sides of the House to hold the Executive

to account. This is a battle, but it is between the Executive and Back Benchers—not between Labour, Conservative or Liberal. Nor should it be.
If the measure goes ahead, it will be immeasurably more difficult for Back Benchers to table amendments in Committee. If we are told that we have to sit at 9 o'clock, we will. If I have to come in at 7.30 am, that will make very little difference. I do not often see the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who accused Conservative Members of wanting to do other jobs, when I collect my mail at 7.30 in the morning. If I have to come in then to study amendments, and to read the legislation to make sure that my bit of the job is done well, I will do it, but for me to do that, the Clerks will have to come in much earlier.
With great respect, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) missed this point completely. The cut-off point which the Committee has recommended will be so much earlier that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, the papers and Hansard from previous sittings that are needed to table sensible, intelligent amendments will simply not be available.
It is significant that two of the three Privy Councillors who have spoken—the right hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—expressed sympathy with those views. It is the duty of the House to hold the Executive to account.

Mr. Derek Foster: I appreciate the House's indulgence. I should have put my name down to speak, but I did not expect to be able to attend the debate.
I want to announce to my colleagues that I shall vote for the Conservative amendment, because I have listened to the arguments and they are very persuasive.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: Rubbish.

Mr. Foster: They are not persuasive to my hon. Friend, but they are to me. Forgive me, but I have been a Member of the House for rather longer than he has. I was Opposition Chief Whip for 10 years, fighting the Conservatives night after night. I was fighting the Liberal Democrats, too, and I will do so again. In my considered view, the Conservatives are right and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is wrong. I have told her so, and she is angry with me, but I have said, "Tough." This is a free vote—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he is now making a speech rather than an intervention.

Mr. Gale: The right hon. Gentleman was making the point better, and with more force and more experience, than I can. He is known on both sides of the House to be a gentleman of enormous principle, and I believe that he is right.
One issue has not been covered thoroughly, and I want to touch on it. When I was first elected to the House 15 years ago, on four mornings a week members of the public could visit the mother of Parliaments, and see it in all its glory and all its workings. On three of those mornings, they could be taken around the House by their Member of Parliament. I say "three" because many


Members of Parliament have a long distance to travel on Monday, or they do constituency business on Monday morning. Therefore, Monday tended not to be the favoured day, and it still is not.
As a result of the move of Prime Minister's Question Time, without any consultation with Madam Speaker, two things have happened. First, there is now only one day when our constituents can attend Prime Minister's Question Time, whereas there used to be two. Therefore, half as many people see twice as much, and that is undesirable. Secondly, constituents who have come a long way cannot now do as they used to and go around the House in the morning, have a picnic lunch and attend Prime Minister's Question Time in the afternoon. That has been denied them.
This, we are told, is a people's Parliament. If it is, why are we about to be asked to vote to deny our constituents yet another morning when they could visit the House? In effect, groups of school children—tomorrow's Members of Parliament—will be confined to one morning of the week—Tuesdays.
For those reasons, and because we have a duty to defend the rights of Back Benchers, I shall be voting for the Opposition's amendment. But it will be for those reasons, not for party political reasons.

Charlotte Atkins: Today we have a chance to grasp the nettle of parliamentary reform, building on the success of the Jopling changes. Before us today is a limited proposal to allow business to end at around 7.30 pm on Thursday, and only on an experimental basis. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will bring forward more radical proposals in the near future.
With so many new Members elected less than two years ago, we have the opportunity to think the unthinkable; to consider how best to deliver the legislative process, and how best to use hon. Members' time in the Chamber, in Committee and in our constituencies.
When my father came to the House more than 30 years ago, the demands and pressures of the constituency were far less great, and the needs of a Member's family were very much on the back burner. It has obviously become fashionable for some Opposition Members to sneer at family-friendly practices.
During my father's first term in Parliament in a marginal seat, I was still at school and I hardly saw him, except occasionally first thing in the morning and, to my embarrassment, if I was coming in at night rather later than I should have done. Now, as the mother of a 12-year-old daughter, I hope that things have moved on a little.
If, as Members of Parliament, we want to be well-rounded individuals—I do not mean the sort of roundness that comes at Christmas—we must be in touch with real people's lives. For them, family life is important, and I believe that family life should be important for Members of Parliament too.
Therefore, I applaud attempts to synchronise parliamentary recesses and adjournments with school holidays, despite the problem of Scottish holidays.

How can we attract sensible, intelligent people to stand for Parliament if one of the requirements of the job is to give up any hope of normal family life.

Mr. John Hayes: That could be said of nurses, doctors, paramedics, policeman and people who serve in the armed forces. Are we to assume that none of them have good family lives or care about their families? They are exceptional jobs, like this one, and exceptional jobs require exceptional commitment. It is as simple as that.

Charlotte Atkins: But we have a chance to change all that. We have a window of opportunity with new Members who are not hidebound by tradition. I sometimes think that this is rather like a scene in "Yes, Minister", where Humphrey might say, "Well, we can keep all those Members really tired and away from their constituencies and families." Then the Minister says, "But can we get away with it?" To which Humphrey replies, "Yes, we can. All we have to do is call it tradition." We can get away from such hidebound traditions by looking at the practicalities of the issue.
We have heard from a number of people that that is impossible, but where there is a will, there is a way. We can build in sufficient flexibility for, shock horror, Members of Parliament to be able to attend parents' evenings, the school nativity play in which their child might be starring, and even to plan school holidays without feeling that they are particularly privileged.
As Members of Parliament, we delight in lecturing businesses, small and large, about modernisation, efficiency and family-friendly practices. How can they take us seriously if we do not live up to the demands that we make of them?
Does it make any sense to ask Members to vote at 10 o'clock on a Thursday night with the result that those who want a full day in their constituencies have to drive through the night? No doubt that is what my near neighbours from Congleton and Macclesfield will have to do, because our last train is at about 8 pm. How many hon. Members have nearly fallen asleep at the wheel?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Lady not accept that some hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been in this place for quite a long time have had reasonably successful family lives, have brought up their children and known them, and have come into the office every morning, as I still do, between 7.30 and 8 am, and stayed there most of the day? Can she not accept that there are experiences other than those that she has had over a brief period?

Charlotte Atkins: Yes, I can accept that, but that is not the norm. People outside cannot understand why we persist in these practices. A month ago, I went to Castle primary school in Mow Cop in my constituency where I spoke to a number of 10 and 11-year-olds about parliamentary life. They were bewildered when I said that the start of the official parliamentary day was 2.30 pm. That view is not confined to 10 and 11-year-olds. Their parents are also bewildered by the sort of practices and confrontational behaviour that we experience in the Chamber. That is reinforced if they are or their parents come to this place. They see that we value their visit so


much that we create no facilities for visitors, ensure that they cannot come during the recesses and can only visit at certain times. We should ensure that they have proper facilities, not crowded corridors, in which to meet their Members of Parliament and have a proper hearing.
I am not suggesting, as was suggested, quite wrongly, of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), that we should have a 9 to 5 parliamentary day. That would be ludicrous. That is the sort of thing that has been rehearsed in the media. Clearly, that is not being suggested. We need to strike a balance between the needs of Members from different parts of the country. However, a 7.30 finish on a Thursday would make sense for those who want to return to their constituencies.
I was pleased to hear an Opposition Member say how he always used to return to his constituency for Friday and Saturday. [Interruption.] In my father's day, 30 years ago, it was the exception for Members to live in their constituencies and to give the sort of attention to constituency business that that hon. Member so honourably did.
Let us vote for this moderate experiment. What are we scared of? I hope that it will create a firm foundation for future reform. [Interruption.] We must show that we are willing to consider creating the modern Parliament that we need to achieve the modern Britain that we aspire to create.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not have private conversations during the debate. The hon. Lady is addressing the House and she is entitled to the courtesy of a hearing. [Interruption.] That is a matter of opinion. It is not appalling to me, and I want to hear what she has to say.

Charlotte Atkins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have concluded my remarks.

Mr. Richard Allan: This has been a fascinating debate in revealing so many contrasting views on the wonderful world of Westminster. I should start by saying that I do not yet feel myself to be a Westminster man but a Sheffield man who has the good fortune to represent my constituents here. On Fridays, I do not visit my constituency, I go home. On Mondays, I come away again from my home. It is very much that way round rather than in any other direction.
I hope that this place does not run like the boarding school that it often seems to be, in that prefects who have been here the longest get the most say over what happens. I should prefer it to be run rather like a business or modern organisation in which new people with fresh perspectives and new ideas are welcome and often able to set the agenda, because they have come in from outside with a different view. I hope that we are a representative democracy, representing all views, spectrums and genders, rather than the gerontocracy that we may sometimes appear to be.
I should class myself as a radical moderniser. Like the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), I am waiting for that outlook to change, with the dramatic realization

that things are done the best way that they possibly can be and should not change at all ever again. I await that moment.
I am fully aware that I have only 18 months' experience in the House. However, having been through our consideration of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and its attendant shenanigans, I feel that I may have had an accelerated learning process in studying the House's more arcane procedures, which I hope—if other reforms are passed—will never have to be used again. Nevertheless, with my 18 months, I have not yet swung away from that modernising view. Currently, I see no prospect that I shall do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said in his speech that the Committee's proposals are a small step, and that, in deciding whether to choose option one or option two, we are angels dancing on the head of a pin. We are considering a small part of a bigger agenda, which is discussed comprehensively in the report. I hope that the House will soon be considering some of the bigger changes.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was right to say the proposals are about evolution. The evolution model is a very good one to use in considering modernisation. Students of Darwin will know that evolution is all about an organism's response to a changing environment. Our environment is changing significantly in two key aspects: first, the legislative process; and, secondly, the role of hon. Members.
Hon. Members have to be more responsive on the legislative process. New things are coming along—we must respond to European directives, international conventions and technology changes. I recently spent time with Centrica, which is the British Gas successor, and was told about its efforts to enter the electricity market. It desperately needs legislation on reforming that market. Centrica knows that, because of how the House works, there is no prospect for two or perhaps three years of getting that legislation. I know of other businesses that are in a similar situation, in which a swifter response by Parliament is required to meet their requirements. I do not believe that our current structures allow us to make all the necessary responses.
I am firmly of the view—speaking on the legislative process as an Opposition Member—that quality should be a more significant factor than quantity in deciding the House's business. We need better time management—which both the current report and previous reports dealt with—rather than only having more time. I do not believe that having more time in which we do not do anything useful will gain us much, although other heads in the House say that the time weapon is an important one. As I observed Parliament before being elected as an hon. Member, it did not seem to me that, particularly the Government of Baroness Thatcher, were significantly diverted from their path because the Opposition were able to sit up all night complaining about the Government's actions, yet losing every Division and failing to change anything.
The second key category of change is the role of hon. Members—which has moved on. I very much feel that I am a public servant, answerable to the public and paid for by the public. I believe that the public have a right to their view on what my job should be. To me, their view is that they expect me to be with them at certain times.


Earlier today, for example, I spent time with some young people from Sheffield—young Sheffielders—who wanted to talk to me about the political process. They are not interested in coming into the Chamber and listening to our debates, and no wave of a magic wand will suddenly make them interested in them. I cannot turn around and say, "Sonny Jim, you ought to come and listen to our debates." That is not what they want. They want me to be with them, talking about politics in their terms. I want to have the time to do that.
I honestly believe that I will do as much for the public process by being outside the House debating and talking with my constituents in their schools, youth clubs and communities as often I will do in this place. Having that time is not only about me promoting myself in my constituency but about the public good. I believe that such time is significant.
I believe also that my experience outside the House with people in my constituency informs my contributions in the House and gives me a much better balance, stopping me from getting out of touch and developing "Westminsteritis" in which I see everything from the Westminster perspective. Such experience benefits particularly hon. Members from more distant constituencies, where people's views of life, of London and of events here are very different from the reality.
I deal with my constituency work in Sheffield. My office there is close to my constituents. I do not have the option in the morning of going through my constituency mail here; it is dealt with in the constituency. I believe that dealing with it there gives a better service. Many other new hon. Members have organised themselves similarly. It is perfectly reasonable, especially if one is operating at some distance, to have Sheffielders in a Sheffield office that has open access to deal with constituency work. I work with them on Mondays and Fridays, but, during the week, they deal with the work in Sheffield.
We have an alternative to evolution: extinction. We can moan all we like about how the media ignore us—whereas in a golden age they avidly took down every word that we said—but I do not believe that that moaning will improve matters. The reality is that most citizens would rather watch politics in the form of a media stunt somewhere rather than as a dry statement in the House. In a Stalinist state, one can control the media and insist that all citizens sit in front of the television and watch our proceedings from beginning to end. Fortunately, in our liberal society, we do not have that option.
It is very important that we evolve to cope with events outside the House. We may not like those developments, but they are the reality and the environment in which we live. The issue is very much one of evolving to work and cope with that environment, or of becoming extinct—ever less relevant, so that we are simply talking to ourselves about how we feel spurned, how no one is interested in us any more and what a shame it is that we cannot return to the golden age of 10, 20 or 30 years ago, depending on one's perspective.
On longer-term proposals, I should prefer the House to consider the parliamentary calendar from scratch. I was very interested in the notion of blocks of working at Westminster and blocks of working in constituencies. I find that option very attractive for myself, not only for my family life, which is a consideration for all hon.

Members, but because it would enable me to give my constituents—the ones whom I was talking about, such as young people and various groups of workers—a firm time commitment and to spend a considerable period of my working life with the people who elected me to this place and pay my wages.
I should like the block system to be introduced. However, I think that we have also to consider matters such as the summer recess, to consider the whole system from scratch. The report rejected the block system, largely because it left in place the summer recess. I should be perfectly happy to have a couple of weeks holiday in August and then to work the rest of August and September, as other workers do. There is nothing wrong with that. The long recess should not be set in stone or obstruct more significant reform.
I like also the idea of having different weeks for plenary sittings, for Committee sittings and for constituency work, as that would reflect the work that we really do. As for the summer recess, as far as I am aware, the Thames no longer fouls up so badly that we are required to leave this place. London is no longer uninhabitable in the summer, when we have to go to our country homes—from here to Sheffield—for some decent air. We could also make better use of that wonderful Terrace if we were here in the months when it is most usable, and no longer regret the fact that it has been left abandoned as we all head off. Being here in the summer would therefore have considerable advantages, and we should put the option on the table rather than exclude summer months entirely.
The key thing for hon. Members such as myself, with my working practices, is to get right the balance between constituency and Westminster. One type of work is not to be excluded by the other; it is all about balance. I hope that in our proceedings, both today and in future, we shall, as a representative Chamber, be able to reach views which—although some hon. Members will disagree with them—allow us to move forward and perhaps to create a House that is genuinely fit for the 21st century—which is the phrase that is always used. We should certainly create a House that is able better to deal with business and to respond to the people who elect us, pay our wages and perhaps remove us from here.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I welcome the opportunity to discuss modernisation of the House and fully support the changes sought by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I am glad that the Committee's proposals are only initial ones. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has left the Chamber. He asked earlier about receiving Select Committee minutes overnight. Perhaps he does not know that new technology permits immediate conversation of voice-to-type. Obtaining minutes is therefore not an issue, as technology will produce the minutes. We also do not need stenographers as technology is changing so rapidly that it can service democracy much quicker.
I have a small favour to ask of my right hon. Friend. In future reports on modernisation, will she provide financial models so that we can see the likely cost to the House of proposed changes?
Reform of the House should start with an examination of the nature of the Executive—the role of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Those roles are undergoing


changes as we move to elected assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as well as in the English regions over the next 10 years, together with the possibility of an elected upper House.
The Prime Minister is frequently referred to as the chief executive of UK plc. As a new Member, perhaps I could present a different perspective. No chief executive of a FTSE 100 company has 22 directors of the board, as we have in the Cabinet. We have more Cabinet members today than when we ran the empire 100 years ago. No chief executive of a FTSE 100 company, having asked his senior management to work a 14-hour day, then rewards them by giving them more work in red boxes that they have to read by the morning. No chief executive of a FTSE 100 company makes his middle managers—us—work at least 12 hours a day and frequently 15, 16 or more for less than £65,000 a year. At 10 o'clock, 11.30 or even 1.30 in the morning in the Lobbies, there can be upwards of £27 million worth of senior management voting. They vote on issues on which many of them have failed to speak—or even attend the debate.

Mr. Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman's analogy is interesting. Inadvertently or not, he has made it clear that he regards Members of Parliament as analogous to middle managers. He appears to be missing the point that we are here to hold the Executive to account, not to assist it in its management functions. That is true of hon. Members on both sides.

Mr. Wyatt: That is our role in a modern democracy, but how best do we do it? We are the middle managers between our constituency and the Executive. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No!"] Opposition Members can disagree.
There will be some hon. Members who have prepared speeches for tonight's debate but who will not be called to speak. It is a shame that those speeches cannot be published in Hansard. It seems absurd to go on with such a system.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I speak from the heart.

Mr. Wyatt: So do I.
The House of Lords divides the time available by the number of Members wishing to speak. Why do we not follow suit?
No chief executive would arrange such strange working hours and then allow most of his employees a 10-week break in the summer. It is not clear to me why the House of Commons is different from the rest of the country. Most people seem to manage with two weeks' holiday in the summer.
We have a working day that no union member and no member of the CBI would adhere to. Why? We need root-and-branch reform of the House of Commons if we are to modernise the country. We should be leading, not following. In everything that we have done to modemise the House, we have been reactive rather than proactive. The tail is wagging the institution. That cannot be right.
I look forward to the day when the House sits from 9.30 in the morning until 8 o'clock in the evening from Monday to Thursday. I should like to see financial models of the cost of such a move.
The current system actively discourages me from having any sort of family life. Is that right in a modern Parliament? Are we proud of it? I am not. It is a relic of the past. We send the wrong signals to the population. We want the best people here. To ensure that, we must give them the best facilities and the best systems. We do not have that.
Funnily enough, I have no contract of employment. I find that rather bizarre. It is true that I am Whipped to my delight and am here to vote and to be on-message—whatever that means. However, my constituents—the reason that I am here—do not have the foggiest idea what their expectations of me should be. They do not know whether I should live in the constituency. They do not know whether I should be holding weekly, fortnightly or monthly surgeries—or no surgeries. They do not know whether I should have a local office or whether I should be spending hours visiting schools, businesses and voluntary services. It is time that the House considered whether there should be a memorandum of understanding spelling out our responsibilities.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Beyond pathetic!

Mr. Wyatt: My speech is going down famously among the Conservatives.
This wonderful building—it is a wonderful building—is out of date for serving a modern democracy. We must convene a committee immediately to plan for a new Parliament that might kick-start us, albeit late, into the 21st century.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) made an interesting speech. I shall read some of his comments with great interest in Hansard tomorrow.
I should like to pick the hon. Gentleman up on one or two issues. I was horrified that he described Members of Parliament as middle management. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of our role. We all stand on a party ticket, but once we are elected we must represent the whole of our constituency, not just those who voted for us. We are certainly not middle management. We are here to represent our constituents to Ministers or to whatever organisation our constituents have problems with. I felt that I had to correct that.
We have had an interesting debate, with strong views expressed. I have intervened once or twice—perhaps rather fiercely at times, but that reflects the strength of my views. I have been here for only 15 years. Surprise, surprise—before I came here, I managed to have a normal family life, and have continued to do so since I was elected. Although some newer Members appear not to like the terms and conditions of this place and our role here, hundreds of people stand at every election, and would willingly swap with us.
I regret that the debate has been rather polarised. At times, it seems to have broken down on party lines. This is a matter for the House of Commons—for the Back Benchers. We are here to keep a check on the Government. Having been on the Government Benches for many years, I find it sobering to be in opposition. Many of the young bloods on the Government Benches


may find themselves in the same situation one day. Their role is to keep a check on their Government on behalf of their constituents.
Two of the most telling contributions this evening have come from two Privy Councillors on the Government Benches—the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), a former Labour Chief Whip, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I hope that the new Members, who are every bit as much a part of this place as those of us who have been here a little longer, will consider carefully what those two experienced Members said, because it was most telling.
The other non-polarised view was that of the Chairmen's Panel. The members of the Chairmen's Panel give their time voluntarily, and take on onerous duties to play their part in the House. I hope that those who have listened to the debate will give weight to what they said.

Sir George Young: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) opened up a new quarry, and many of us will spend Christmas reading his speech to see how we can best deploy some of his arguments.
In the light of the debate, I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a separate debate on the Main Committee. Many speeches touched on the issue, but the debate has focused on Thursdays. When we return, perhaps on a Thursday, may we have a proper debate on the Main Committee, and encourage hon. Members to focus their minds on it?
I regret that we spent so much time on procedural issues. I genuinely believe that our approach has enabled the House to choose between two options, but I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that those who have listened to today's debate may take the view that the Modernisation Committee was conducted with the same tone. It was not. It was a fairly harmonious, conciliatory process. I very much hope that, after a seasonal break and with some good will, the Committee will resume in the new year in a spirit of co-operation.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) suggested—I think in some anger—that Opposition Members on the Committee should compile a minority report. I hope that, on reflection, he will feel able to withdraw that remark. He will not find four more conciliatory Conservative Members than the four who sit on the Modernisation Committee. We made a number of concessions, and we will approach our future agenda with good will.
The high point of the debate was the speech of the former Labour Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). He blew out of the water the Government's moral case that Labour Members had agreed to Jopling because it was the right course of action for the House. He made it quite clear that they agreed to it only when they thought that they would win the next election. They agreed to it out of base partisan motives, not the high-minded motives that we had been led to believe.
The main debate has been about whether Standing Committees should sit at 9 am or 10.30 am, and whether Question Time should be at 11.30 am or 2.30 pm. The

balance of the debate has gone very much with the amendment. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a bridge-building speech, and we heard many speeches from those who chair our Standing Committees, including my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Those of us who sit on Standing Committees have a duty to listen to those who chair them. Their unanimous view was that the 10.30 am option is better than the 9 am one.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet took us through some of the procedural consequences, and the implications for staff, if we invited Standing Committees to meet at 9 am. If we are to change, I hope that we make the right change, and heed the advice of those who chair our Standing Committees.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet also mentioned the views of Madam Speaker. I understand all the sensitivities about that, but the real discourtesy to Madam Speaker would be not to refer to her views but to ignore them.
I conclude with a word of caution. I very much hope that the Government do not take the view that they can use their majority in the House to alter the way in which the House works. That would be a sad break with tradition, which, if abused, could undermine the ability of the legislature to hold the Executive to account. Against the background of the debate, and given that there is a free vote on both sides, I very much hope that those who have listened to the debate and take our procedures seriously will agree that the amendment is the right way forward, and that they will vote for it.

Mrs. Beckett: First, let me respond to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) by saying that, like him, I regret the tone of some of the debate, and hope that, in future, the Select Committee will return to its customary comradely tone. I shall certainly bear in mind what he said about the Main Committee. At first, it was not entirely plain to me whether he had proposed an early debate on the matter. Perhaps that is what he means, and we can certainly discuss that through the usual channels.
I regretted, and was perhaps a little surprised by, the tone of some of the debate, but I suppose that I should not have been. Despite what he said a moment ago, the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks made the ridiculous proposition that in some way in the past 18 months this Parliament has become less central to the life of the nation. That suggestion was comprehensively blown out of the water by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who made the pertinent point that it was complete nonsense, and that the role and treatment of Parliament had been changing for many years.
One or two speeches suggested that there was something strange about the Government making proposals to a Committee and seeking their endorsement. The right hon. Gentleman picked up on that in his closing remarks. As you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is neither strange nor unusual. The most recent example that I can call to mind was in the 1993–94 Session, when


the then Government sought changes in the Standing Orders for the consideration of deregulation orders that were put to the Procedure Committee; so there is nothing unusual about that.
Nor, indeed, do the Government have any intention of using their majority to dictate to the House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that our conduct in the Committee does not support that suggestion. Although it is not unusual for the Government to propose changes to Standing Orders and so on, it is unusual—and we were advised that it might not be possible—for the Government to put alternative motions to the House.
However, the Government did just that, giving effect to the considered and unanimous decision of the Select Committee at paragraph 73 of the report:
If the House rejects the Government proposal, we recommend that for this experimental period the alternative scenario"—
the one in the right hon. Gentleman's amendment—
be adopted.
The Government have gone further than would have been necessary had we chosen to use our majority, and decided to give the House the choice of the alternatives on a free vote.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) commands great respect and affection in the House, and he continues to command mine despite my strong disagreement with what he said this evening. Not only did I disagree with my right hon. Friend this evening; I disagreed with him over the Jopling proposals, and did so forcefully. As he has put his views on record and referred to mine, I would say to the House openly and bluntly that I have had the advantage of serving in the House for a slightly longer period. I have also had the advantage of serving in the Government Whips Office, in a Government who had no majority.
On the basis of that experience and the rest, I can say that the notion that in some way time is the weapon of the Opposition is a myth. As I said to the then shadow Cabinet, very rarely does the House change what the Government do in that way. Instead, we kill a few hon. Members on both sides. That may be considered a suitable occupation for a modern House of Commons, but I have never thought it so.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I have only two minutes.
I remind the House that we are considering proposals for an experiment. The delay in introducing the Jopling proposals has been mentioned, but the principal reason for that delay was that the then Government initially wanted to make a permanent change in the Standing Orders. I hope and believe that my advice as shadow Leader of the House to the then Leader of the House had some influence—I suggested that it would be a mistake to make permanent a change of which the House did not have experience, and that it would be wise to proceed through evolution and experiment. That is precisely what the Government are recommending tonight.
The debate has made it clear that the real choice is between what I would describe as no change or proper change. I do support the mish-mash and half-baked

experiment that is—in my view; and it is my view alone—almost bound, and perhaps even intended, to fail. The House has a choice between the status quo and a good proposal. I urge the House to support the motion, but not the amendment to it.

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [15 December].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Parliamentary Calendar: Initial Proposals (HC60).

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (No. 1)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, with effect from Monday 11th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

(1) the House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;

(2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; and

(3) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Amendment proposed to the Motion (Sittings of the House (No. 1)): in paragraph 1, leave out from 'will' to end and add
proceed with public business, which may include a motion for the adjournment of the House;

(2) at two o'clock on Thursdays, the Speaker shall interrupt the business without question put and the sitting shall be suspended until half-past two o'clock; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions, after which any business interrupted at two o'clock shall be resumed;

(3) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; and

(4) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to a quarter to three o'clock in Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), to half-past three o'clock in Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions) and to twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall remain unaltered.".—[Sir George Young.]

Question put, pursuant to Order [15 December],That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 311.

Division No. 26]
[8.41 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Barnes, Harry


Amess, David
Beggs, Roy


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Blunt, Crispin






Boswell, Tim
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Kirkwood, Archy


Brady, Graham
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brand, Dr Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Letwin, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lidington, David


Burnett, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Burns, Simon
Loughton, Tim


Butterfill, John
Luff, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chidgey, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Madel, Sir David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis



May, Mrs Theresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Collins, Tim
Mitchell, Austin


Colvin, Michael
Moore, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Cormack, Sir Patrick
O'Hara, Eddie


Cotter, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Cran, James
Ottaway, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Page, Richard


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Paice, James


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Paterson, Owen


Day, Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Randall, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Robathan, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fraser, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gale, Roger
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Garnier, Edward
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gerrard, Neil
Spring, Richard



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gibb, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Syms, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gorrie, Donald
Taylor Ian (Esher & Walton)


Greenway, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tyler, Paul


Hammond, Philip
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Hayes, John
Waterson, Nigel


Heald, Oliver
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Woodward, Shaun


Jenkin, Bernard
Yeo, Tim


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Keetch, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Mrs. Marion Roe and


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. John Bercow.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Atherton, Ms Candy


Allan, Richard
Atkins, Charlotte


Allen, Graham
Baker, Norman


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Ballard, Jackie





Banks, Tony
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dismore, Andrew


Battle, John
Dobbin, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Doran, Frank


Begg, Miss Anne
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Drew, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Drown, Ms Julia


Berry, Roger
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Best, Harold
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Betts, Clive
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blackman, Liz
Fatchett, Derek


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fisher, Mark


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Boateng, Paul
Flint, Caroline


Borrow, David
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Breed, Colin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Galbraith, Sam


Browne, Desmond
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Buck, Ms Karen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burden, Richard
Goggins, Paul


Burgon, Colin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grogan, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gunnell, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hain, Peter


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caton, Martin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hanson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clapham, Michael
Harris, Dr Evan


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coaker, Vernon



Coffey, Ms Ann
Hill, Keith


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cooper, Yvette
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Howells, Dr Kim


Cranston, Ross
Hoyle, Lindsay


Crausby, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dean, Mrs Janet



Denham, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)






Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rammell, Bill


Kidney, David
Rapson, Syd


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kingham, Ms less
Rendel, David


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooker, Jeff


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Roy, Frank


Laxton, Bob
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Levitt, Tom
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Salter, Martin


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sanders, Adrian


Livingstone, Ken
Savidge, Malcolm


Livsey, Richard
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Llwyd, Elfyn
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lock, David
Singh, Marsha


Love, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Southworth, Ms Helen


McNulty, Tony
Spellar, John


Mactaggart, Fiona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWalter, Tony
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mallaber, Judy
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marek, Dr John
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Maxton, John
Stringer, Graham


Merron, Gillian
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michael, Alun
Stunell, Andrew


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moffatt, Laura



Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Timms, Stephen


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Todd, Mark


Mullin, Chris
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Norris, Dan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Oaten, Mark
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Vis, Dr Rudi


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Wallace, James


Palmer, Dr Nick
Walley, Ms Joan


Pearson, Ian
Ward, Ms Claire


Pickthall, Colin
Wareing, Robert N


Pike, Peter L
Watts, David


Plaskitt, James
White, Brian


Pond, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pope, Greg
Wicks, Malcolm


Powell, Sir Raymond
Willis, Phil


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Wood, Mike


Primarolo, Dawn
Worthington, Tony


Prosser, Gwyn
Wray, James





Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Miss Melanie Johnson and


Wyatt, Derek
Dr. Phyllis Starkey.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had always understood that the business of the House of Commons was traditionally a matter for a free vote. Outside the Aye Lobby, there were no Whips, either Liberal or Conservative, but outside the No Lobby there were at least four Government Whips, encouraging those with no independence of mind into the Lobby. Is not that an abuse of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Whips can go where they please: the Chair has no control over them.

Main Question put—

The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 120.

Division No. 27]
[8.56 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caplin, Ivor


Alexander, Douglas
Caton, Martin


Allan, Richard
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Allen, Graham
Chidgey, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clapham, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atkins, Charlotte



Baker, Norman
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ballard, Jackie
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Banks, Tony
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coaker, Vernon


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coffey, Ms Ann


Begg, Miss Anne
Cohen, Harry


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Colman, Tony


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy


Best, Harold
Corston, Ms Jean


Betts, Clive
Cotter, Brian


Blackman, Liz
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cox, Tom


Blizzard, Bob
Cranston, Ross


Boateng, Paul
Crausby, David


Borrow, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cummings, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Brand, Dr Peter
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Breed, Colin
Darvill, Keith


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Browne, Desmond
Dawson, Hilton


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Buck, Ms Karen
Denham, John


Burden, Richard
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Burgon, Colin
Dismore, Andrew


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dobbin, Jim


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Donohoe, Brian H


Caborn, Richard
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Drew, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)






Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fatchett, Derek
Kingham, Ms Tess


Fearn, Ronnie
Kirkwood, Archy


Fisher, Mark
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flint, Caroline
Laxton, Bob


Flynn, Paul
Leslie, Christopher


Follett, Barbara
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Livsey, Richard


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fyfe, Maria
Llwyd, Elfyn


Galbraith, Sam
Lock, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Love, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
McAvoy, Thomas


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Goggins, Paul
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Macdonald, Calum


Gorrie, Donald
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Grogan, John
McNulty, Tony


Gunnell, John
MacShane, Denis


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hanson, David
Mallaber, Judy


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harvey, Nick
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maxton, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Merron, Gillian


Hepburn, Stephen
Michael, Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Milburn, Alan


Hill, Keith
Moffatt, Laura


Hinchliffe, David
Moore, Michael


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoey, Kate
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Home Robertson, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hope, Phil
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Howells, Dr Kim
Mudie, George


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Hutton, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Oaten, Mark


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pond, Chris


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keetch, Paul
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kidney, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken





Quin, Ms Joyce
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Quinn, Lawrie
Stunell, Andrew


Radice, Giles
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rooker, Jeff
Todd, Mark


Roy, Frank
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Trickett, Jon


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sanders, Adrian
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Savidge, Malcolm
Tyler, Paul


Sawford, Phil
Vaz, Keith


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Vis, Dr Rudi


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wallace, James


Singh, Marsha
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Watts, David


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
White, Brian


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Willis, Phil


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Spellar, John
Wood, Mike


Squire, Ms Rachel
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, James


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Miss Melanie Johnson and


Stringer, Graham
Dr. Phyllis Starkey.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Duncan Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel


Barnes, Harry
Fallon, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fraser, Christopher


Blunt, Crispin
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gibb, Nick


Brady, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grieve, Dominic


Burnett, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butterfill, John
Hammond, Philip


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hawkins, Nick



Hayes, John


Chope, Christopher
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushdiffe)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas



Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Collins, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Curry, Rt Hon David



Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie






Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lansley, Andrew
St Aubyn, Nick


Letwin, Oliver
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Loughton, Tim
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Swayne, Desmond


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Syms, Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Madel, Sir David
Trend Michael


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tyrie, Andrew


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Viggers, pater


May, Mrs Theresa
Waterson, Nigel



Whitney, Sir Raymond


Mitchell, Austin
Whttingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Öpik, Lembit
Willetts, David


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paice, James
Woodward, Shaun


Paterson, Owen
Yeo, Tim


Pickles, Eric
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Randall, John



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mrs. Marion Roe and


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Mr. John Bercow.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That, with effect from Monday 11th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

(1) the House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;

(2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; and

(3)in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration)

MEETINGS OF STANDING COMMITTEES (No. 1)

Motion made, and Question put,

That, with effect from Monday 11th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

Meetings of standing committees:

Standing committees shall have leave to sit at any hour and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, subject to the following provisions:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of one o'clock and half-past three o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meeting of standing committees); and

(b) on Thursdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of half-past eleven o'clock and half-past twelve o'clock, except as

provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) with the substitution in that paragraph of "half-past eleven o'clock" for "one o'clock" and "a quarter to twelve o'clock" for "a quarter past one o'clock".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 66.

Division No. 28]
[9.9 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Ms Jean


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cotter, Brian


Alexander, Douglas
Cousins, Jim


Allan, Richard
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Cranston, Ross


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Crausby, David


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cummings, John


Atkins, Charlotte
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Baker, Norman
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Ballard, Jackie
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Banks, Tony
Darvill, Keith


Battle, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bayley, Hugh
Davidson, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Begg, Miss Anne
Dawson, Hilton


Beggs, Roy
Dean, Mrs Janet


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Denham, John


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Bennett, Andrew F
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Doran, Frank


Blackman, Liz
Dowd, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drew, David


Blizzard, Bob
Drown, Ms Julia


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bradshaw, Ben
Fisher, Mark


Brand, Dr Peter
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Breed, Colin
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foulkes, George


Buck, Ms Karen
Fyfe, Maria


Burgon, Colin
Galbraith, Sam


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Caborn, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gorrie, Donald


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chidgey, David
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clelland, David
Harris, Dr Evan


Coaker, Vernon
Harvey, Nick


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cohen, Harry
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Colman, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hesford, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith






Hinchliffe, David
Martlew, Eric


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Maxton, John


Hoey, Kate
Merron, Gillian


Home Robertson, John
Michael, Alun


Hoon, Geoffrey
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hope, Phil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Milburn, Alan


Howells, Dr Kim
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moore, Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hutton, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Norris, Dan



Oaten, Mark


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
O'Hara, Eddie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Öpik, Lembit


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keetch, Paul
Pearson, Ian


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pike, Peter L


Kidney, David
Plaskitt, James


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pond, Chris


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pope, Greg


Kingham, Ms Tess
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kirkwood, Archy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Primarolo, Dawn


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prosser, Gwyn


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Purchase, Ken


Laxton, Bob
Quin, Ms Joyce


Leslie, Christopher
Quinn, Lawrie


Levitt, Tom
Rammell, Bill


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rapson, Syd


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Raynsford, Nick


Livingstone, Ken
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Livsey, Richard
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rendel, David


Love, Andrew
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roy, Frank


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Macdonald, Calum
Ryan, Ms Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Sanders, Adrian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Savidge, Malcolm


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNulty, Tony
Singh, Marsha


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Southworth, Ms Helen





Spellar, John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Steinberg, Gerry
Tyler, Paul


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Vaz, Keith


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wallace, James


Stoate, Dr Howard
Walley, Ms Joan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Ward, Ms Claire


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Watts, David


Stringer, Graham
White, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stunell, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Willis, Phil


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wood, Mike


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wray, James


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Todd, Mark
Wyatt, Derek


Tonge, Dr Jenny



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trickett, Jon
Miss Melanie Johnson and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Dr. Phyllis Starkey.




NOES


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Barnes, Harry
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bercow, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Jenkin, Bernard


Brazier, Julian
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lansley, Andrew


Burnett, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Butterfill, John
Lidington, David


Chope, Christopher
Luff, Peter


Clappison, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Nicholls, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Cran, James
Paterson, Owen


Curry, Rt Hon David
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Randall, John


Day, Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fallon, Michael
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Flynn, Paul
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spring, Richard



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fox, Dr Liam
Swayne, Desmond


Fraser, Christopher
Syms, Robert


Gale, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gibb, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gill, Christopher
Waterson, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin
Willetts, David


Greenway, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hammond, Philip



Hawkins, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Hayes, John
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Heald, Oliver
Mr. Dominic Grieve.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
As the House is aware, we adjourn for the Christmas recess tomorrow. Following the exchanges at Prime Minister's questions today, and in the light of representations that have been made, the Government have decided that the business for tomorrow will now be a debate on Iraq, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The business previously announced for tomorrow will be taken at a later date.
I take this opportunity to confirm that the business for the week of 11 January will be as I announced last Thursday. It may help the House to know that we hope to take the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, or some part of it, in the following week.

Sir George Young: The Opposition welcome the Government's decision to change the business tomorrow so that the House has an opportunity to debate this grave matter. Who will be speaking for the Government?

Mrs. Beckett: Cabinet colleagues will be opening and winding up the debate. [Laughter.]

Mr. Menzies Campbell: When we may be about to ask British service men, and, increasingly, service women, to put their lives at risk, one would have thought that hilarity would form no part of our consideration.
On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the right hon. Lady's announcement. It is an awesome responsibility to ask our armed forces to risk their lives on behalf of this country, and it is only right and proper that the House should have the opportunity to discuss the matter before the Christmas recess.

Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. In fairness to members of the Conservative Front Bench, I do not think that it was they who joined in the hilarity.

Sir Peter Emery: The hilarity was in response to not knowing who would speak for the Government; it had nothing to do with our service men. They are the last people any of us would wish to laugh at. If our forces are to be deployed, will the Government have by tomorrow made up their mind whether the House will be recalled to deal with this very serious matter? I cannot expect the right hon. Lady to answer that today.

Mrs. Beckett: All these matters can be explored tomorrow. I conveyed the seriousness with which we take

this matter by saying that Cabinet colleagues will both open and wind up the debate. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is not normally the custom except for the most serious matters.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

EDUCATION

That the draft Financing of Maintained Schools Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

MMR Vaccine

Caroline Flint: I bring before the House a petition of 4,800 signatures on behalf of members of the public and Patricia Revell and Kate Coull, who are mothers of autistic children. The petitioners are concerned about the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, and the link between it and autism and inflammatory bowel conditions. They feel that several measures should be taken for the good of the children of this country.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Health
to undertake a full research programme to prove the safety of the vaccine
to instigate further research into autism
and to set up and monitor a register of autistic children.
The petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

A14 (Cambridgeshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of the greatest concern to my constituents and those of neighbouring constituencies. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) are in their places. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Jackson) is to reply to the debate. I note that it is the second time today that she has had to do so. I suspect that, as we approach the end of 1998, she will receive the accolade of becoming the Minister who has responded to the most Adjournment debates this year. I thank her for staying with us for just one more time this year.
The debate is timely. The issues have often been raised with the Government by me, my predecessor and other Members. Circumstances surrounding the A14 have become of increasingly severe concern in my constituency, partly as a result of the rate at which accidents have occurred and the severity of such accidents, but principally as a result of the increase in traffic and congestion. Concern was reflected most recently by a dramatically large response in the region to a series of compelling articles in the Cambridge Evening News.
The A14 in Cambridgeshire is one of the most heavily used and congested trunk roads in the country. Seventy eight thousand vehicles a day travel on the three-lane section of the A 14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon which passes through my constituency. The Highways Agency calculates that 66,000 vehicles a day travel on the two-lane section between Bar Hill and Huntingdon. The traffic has a very high heavy goods vehicle content: recent observations recorded 5,000 vehicles an hour at peak times, and, of those, one in four was a heavy goods vehicle.
The Minister has recently answered several questions on the issue. One such answer illustrated that the stretch of the A14 to which I have referred is among the 10 most heavily used sections of dual carriageway in the country. I am familiar with some of the others—for example, between the M25 and Southend, the Al27 is a two-lane section with a high level of usage, but a considerable difference is the extent to which local traffic has been grade-separated on the Al27 by the installation of new junctions and so on. Such safety measures have not been installed on all such roads.
The British Road Federation took the trouble to write to me when it became aware of this Adjournment debate. The BRF described the A14 as
one of the most economically important routes in the country.
The debate is of significance for a wider region than simply my constituency and the neighbouring ones.
At each end of the stretch of road between Huntingdon and Cambridge in particular, two heavily used two-lane roads feed in. On one side there is the A14 east-west route coming in as a two-lane section. Recently the A1(M)

was opened, as the Minister knows, by her noble Friend Lord Whitty. That road from the north is a four-lane section coming down towards Huntingdon, so on that side there are six lanes feeding into the A14. At the other end, there is the A14 going on to the east coast ports and the M11 going down to the M25 and the Dartford bridge.
A classic bottleneck is thus created on a trans-European network. The road is in a unique category. I do not know of any other road anywhere in the country that occupies such a critical position for east-west traffic and also for north-south traffic. It so happens that its orientation from the north-west to the south-east makes it a convenient part of routes in both those significant directions. Once the Al-M1 link was completed, it was clear that high levels of traffic growth could occur in the future.
The road is not congested simply by trunk road traffic. It is also used for local purposes, which gives rise to a serious complication. Originally, in 1972, it was designed to be a three-lane all-purpose carriageway. The stretch in question was built only as a two-lane carriageway. I imagine that the policy of "predict and provide" did not exist then, but even at that early stage, expectations of a need for a three-lane section were rare. That is what should have been built.
In the past 10 years there has been a 68 per cent. growth in traffic. There has been a significant increase since the opening of the A 1-M1 link. I suspect that the upgrading of the Al to motorway standard up to Peterborough will in due course lead to a further increase in traffic, although in a reply to me a day or two ago, the Minister suggested that that would not be the case. We shall see.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to Cambridge today as a growth centre. In response to questions after his statement, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he would foster economic development in areas such as Cambridge. The White Paper states that
the Government is reviewing how the planning system can best help promote the needs of clusters of businesses in growth industries; and the implications for their expansion for other land uses such as housing and transport infrastructure.
Not only is the road critical for existing transport purposes, but the pressures on the road make it impossible to contemplate economic development such as that envisaged by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, or development of the kind proposed at Alconbury, which is the subject of consideration by Huntingdon district council. It is extremely difficult to consider the proposals for a new settlement close to Cambridge. One of the principal suggestions for that is a site north of the A14, with considerable traffic on and off that road.
We must recognise that—in the absence of significant change in the area's transport infrastructure and, most particularly, the upgrading of the A14—those developments would be unsustainable. The Government may soon be contemplating economic development and its promotion in the Cambridge area, which will not be achieved without a Government U-turn in respect of transport infrastructure and the A14 in particular.
I am told that the Highways Agency estimates that the theoretical capacity on the two-lane section of the A 14 is 68,000 vehicles a day, and that traffic flow would begin to break down at that point, with congestion occurring. On-site observations by Cambridgeshire county council have shown that breakdown occurs at about 50,000 vehicles a day and becomes increasingly severe.
Unfortunately congestion occurs daily and the consequences are severe. The number of accidents is high, and a personal injury accident occurs every three days on that road. People in and around my constituency and the Minister will know that a serious accident on 18 November at Lolworth resulted in a fatality. Given the circumstances, it could easily have led to additional deaths.
Hon. Members will realise that when a road arrives at the point at which congestion is assumed to occur, people divert on to other roads. Measurement of congestion on the A 14 cannot be achieved simply by looking at how many cars use it, because drivers are increasingly using other local roads and causing congestion. There is rat running through villages such as Hilton and along the A428, which is virtually at full capacity. On that road, at the new village settlement of Cambourne, 3,300 new homes are being built, and the first will be sold in the summer of next year. There is increasingly no way out on the road. When blockages occur on the A14, the consequences are congestion in all those neighbouring villages, and congestion and blockages on many neighbouring roads such as the A1198 and the A428. In some villages adjacent to the Al4 there is gridlock. Two examples will suffice. Bar Hill is a substantial village of some 3,000 homes, which exits only on to the A14. There is no other way in and out, so when the A14 is congested—it is often congested in both directions at the same time—traffic backs up into the village and people cannot come and go.
The small village of Lolworth exits only on to the westbound carriageway of the A14. If one wants to go from Lolworth to Cambridge, one has to go west to the next junction and then come back on the eastbound carriageway. People have to enter and exit the carriageway twice, and they have two chances of meeting congestion. I once stood in the centre of the village when the A14 was blocked. Cars shot past me on Lolworth high street, going to the top of the village. Five minutes later they shot back again.
The Minister will appreciate that the road—which is part of a trans-European network, part of the trunk road system and an integral and vital part of the national road structure—is essentially a local road for certain purposes. That is one reason why we must deal with the road. Otherwise, life in the neighbouring area will become unbearable.
Comprehensive improvements to the A14 were in the Government's trunk road programme, but in July Ministers took them out of the self-styled targeted programme of improvements and substituted the proposal for a multi-modal study. In the past few days the Minister disclosed in a parliamentary answer that the start date for the study, in tranche 2, will be 2000–01. As the Minister has previously said that the study itself will take a year to complete, that means that it will be at least three years, and perhaps four, before we know whether the Government intend to upgrade the A14. No doubt Ministers will then say that design studies and public consultation have to be undertaken and programme finance sought. By that time, Cambridgeshire will have been strangled by gridlock.
My purpose tonight is to urge Ministers to recognise the need for urgent action and to respond in four key ways. First, the Highways Agency should undertake immediate traffic flow management and safety measures. A study in December 1995 identified 14 potential improvements. Others could now be contemplated, including stronger safety barriers, and so on.
In response to recent questions, the Minister told me that a number of those improvements are to take place in the spring of next year. Among the measures identified three years ago, the most important, relating to slip roads and lay-bys, are not yet planned, and I urge the Minister that they should be.
Secondly, the Government have dropped the A14 improvement from the programme. That decision was flawed. Using the Government's own criteria for the assessment of environmental impact, safety, economic factors, accessibility and integration, and based on a study completed by Cambridgeshire county council, it is clear that the improvement of the A14 would bring large and quantifiable benefits.
For example, without giving an exhaustive account, in relation to environmental impact, the county council has identified an extensive reduction in noise pollution and a reduction in rat running, to which I have referred. In relation to safety, poor design of the junctions and the entry and exit points has given rise to high accident levels.
On the economy, I refer to the views of the British Road Federation and to the importance of Cambridge as a sub-region and the long journey times faced by companies which are having to engage in just-in-time deliveries and, as a matter of course, to build in the potential for considerable delays when using the road for deliveries.
On accessibility and public transport, many buses going into and out of Cambridge use the A 14. Therefore, even public transport is significantly failing because of the character of the road. At certain points, the A14 is also a dangerous road for pedestrians. Last Sunday, there was a tragic death on the northern bypass, so there is a clear danger there.
On the potential for integration between different modes of transport, the A14 is not well optimised for multi-modal activity or for transfer between different transport modes. I suspect that it could not be without grade separation between the trunk road and local roads.
I look to the Minister this evening to concede that when the July announcements were made, and "A New Deal for Trunk Roads: Understanding the New Approach to Appraisal" was published, no full assessment of the A14 was made in those terms. Will she now agree to consider, perhaps jointly with the Highways Agency and Cambridgeshire county council, those five criteria in relation to the road and see whether the decision was flawed and can be reviewed?
As an alternative to improvements to the A14 in the programme, the Government seek a multi-modal study. I am sure that both sides of the House will agree that to maximise the use of public transport is clearly right, but my third point is to seek from the Minister a concession to reality—that there is, in truth, no prospect of meeting a significant part of the present traffic use, still less the whole of the future traffic growth, by public transport options. Therefore, whatever the outcome of the multi-modal study, significant improvement, upgrade and grade separation of the A14 is part of the solution.


In parallel with the multi-modal study, there should be design studies. If they progress rapidly, public consultation should occur in parallel with the multi-modal study on preparing the A 14 for an upgrade at some time.
If the study is not made relatively soon, there will be no chance of the road being upgraded within the next 10 years, and that would be wholly unacceptable. Therefore, whatever happens, I ask the Minister to assure the House, my constituents and the people of Cambridgeshire that three years would simply be too long. If such a study is to be made, it should be included in tranche 1. I shall certainly be pressing for that in the regional planning conference, although I hope that the Minister will pre-empt that undertaking, and herself undertake to consider including the study in tranche 1.
Does the Minister accept that, whatever happens, the A 14 must be improved so that local traffic is separated from the trunk road? It really is untenable for the situation to continue—a situation that applies also on stretches of the A1, and that has provided part of the reasoning behind proposed improvements on that road—in which large amounts of local traffic enter and exit the A14, thereby making lane changes. The presence of such traffic is the reason why there are so many dangers on the A14. Does the Minister accept that we must find ways of keeping local traffic off the main road?
I am not interested simply in laying tarmac over South Cambridgeshire or driving a motorway through my constituency for the sake of it—far from it. We should not be in the business of building roads except when they are strictly necessary. However, I am determined—on the basis of observation, evidence and the views of my constituents—that we must accept a realistic approach to the road. There is no way forward for transport along the corridor except the improvement of the A14. Improvement of the A14 would meet the Government's own criteria—not of predicting and providing or of catering for future traffic growth, but of dealing with the congestion and bottlenecks currently in the system. Congestion and bottlenecks are occurring and have to be dealt with on the basis of current evidence.
Development is coming fast, and the infrastructure is not coping and will not cope with it. If action does not come soon, there will be further deaths and injuries, and congestion will worsen rapidly. Moreover, the local economy and, in some respects, the national economy, will become gridlocked. The Road Haulage Association and the British Road Federation have testified to the road's critical economic importance. The British Road Federation, in a letter to me, itself regretted the Government's apparent lack of urgency in finding a solution to the problem.
Thousands of my constituents know only too well that their lives will be made ever more miserable until the road is improved. I call on the Minister to show understanding, and to respond positively to this debate.
As I realise that the situation will not be changed before Christmas, I should like, through the medium of this debate, to suggest to my constituents that they should try over the Christmas period to stay at home and not drive on the road. If they do have to drive, I ask them to drive safely.
I should like also to wish the Minister—when the time comes—a happy Christmas, especially if she is able in her reply to bring added Christmas cheer to my constituents by responding positively to some of the points that I have raised.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this debate, and I thank him for his courtesy in allowing me to speak in it.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is quite surprised to hear me speaking on roads, as she knows from her previous experience of hearing me speak in transport debates that I usually talk about pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, specifically rail transport. She knows that I am a great champion of those means of transport. However, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has made some valuable points, and there is cross-party support in the county council and in the city of Cambridge for some improvement to be made to the A14.
I should like to take a little time to explain the reasons why improvement to the A14 is necessary, and perhaps to go back over some history. It may be helpful to do so.
The previous Government decided not to continue with the A 14 widening scheme. I have a letter from John Watts, the previous transport Minister, to Cambridgeshire county council in February 1997. He explained:
The A14-M11-A10 Widening Scheme was withdrawn from the programme after careful consideration of the scheme's economics and the environmental data, to remove uncertainty and planning blight.
That decision of the previous Government has been continued by this one.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement on the competitiveness White Paper today. Last Monday I was fortunate enough to visit a firm on the Cambridge science park. I must apologise to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), because I think that it is in his constituency, but it is only a few feet over the border with mine—apologies if they are due. I always feel that the science park should belong to Cambridge city and I am sorry that it does not.
The firm, Biogemma, is owned by a French company that thinks it important to have a research outlet on the Cambridge science park because of the world-beating research that goes on there. It employs about 40 people in high-value jobs, doing research into food technology. The managing director told me that the transport situation has become very difficult, because whenever there is an accident on the A14, the traffic backs up down Milton road. It is impossible even for those trying to travel within Cambridge to get out of the science park, let alone those going on to the A14. They are virtually trapped in the science park. That is not conducive to good business on the science park, so there is a real and immediate problem.
Those who work on the science park should be looking at alternative means of transport. Unfortunately, for many of them such alternative means are not in place. We do not have a rail link even part of the way to Huntingdon. If the Cambridge to St. Ives rail line were reopened—I have campaigned for that for many years—there would be an alternative and people would be able to leave their cars behind. However, that facility is not in place.
Earlier this year I wrote to the county council to find out whether that route was still on its list of projects that should go ahead. My reply from the assistant director of planning said:
the Council's current policy is to pursue the development of a rail link on this route.
I am pleased to report that and to support it. The assistant director went on:
It seems likely that any public transport service along this route will need to be funded through a combination of PFI and developer contributions, and we will be meeting with the Government Office to discuss this once growth options for the Cambridge sub-region have been explored".
Desirable though a railway line is, I am afraid that it still seems a long way off. The problems, however, are immediate. I want essential safety measures to be carried out on the Al4 and I support the plea of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for an earlier study than the second tranche study that has been promised. We need to look at the A 14 corridor, the rail link and the road link and see what essential improvements can be made.
I entirely support the Government's transport policy. It is absolutely right that we should try to reduce road transport which causes pollution and congestion and is not an efficient means of moving people from A to B. I hope that in the long term, most people who use the A 14 will find an alternative route by rail, bus or some means other than private cars. Many of them could, if the alternatives were available.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: When?

Mrs. Campbell: There was no need for that shouted remark, as I am being entirely supportive. There are no alternatives at the moment and it is likely to be a long time before there are. I am asking for a short-term solution to ensure both that my constituents can travel in safety, and that the essential economic development on the science park in Cambridge is not hindered by the lack of an alternative transport option.

Mr. James Paice: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate, and congratulate him on the lucid way in which he has described the problems of the A14 and on his good fortune in choosing a day when we have been able to have a slightly longer than usual Adjournment debate. The extra time has allowed the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and me to contribute to the debate—I hope that is valuable.
The stretch of the A14 to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred was in my constituency until the boundary changes prior to the general election, so I have witnessed the continuing increase in traffic and the worsening situation. It is perhaps surprising to people who spend most of their time in or around London to learn that I believe the A14 can get as bad as the M25 on a bad day and the traffic on that stretch can be absolutely awful. As my hon. Friend said, many people who wish to use it now have to build in a lot of extra time to compensate for those delays.
I would make one point about the delays. As a user of that road and other two-lane dual carriageways, it seems to me that whatever the theoretical capacity of a road, there is a tendency for almost everyone to drive on the outside lane. The reason for that is usually heavy goods vehicles, one trying to overtake another and both operating at the maximum allowed by the governor on their engines. They overtake imperceptibly slowly and sometimes even have to fall back eventually, with the result that huge queues of traffic build up behind them—leaving the inside lane almost entirely empty. Any theoretical capacity is thus completely destroyed. Perhaps the Minister could attempt to find a way in which that could be addressed as there would be a greater throughput of traffic if both lanes were used properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Minister, knows full well the importance of the A14. Indeed he used to work in a company in my constituency and has experienced the same problems as my constituents.
I have consistently supported the opening up of the railway line from Cambridge to St. Ives. It is an existing link, all bar three miles at one end. Under the previous Government, at my invitation a former Minister of rail, now Lord Freeman, came to meetings with Cambridge county council, Railtrack, the Railway Development Society and all the other organisations and even walked part of the track to see how that railway could play its part in assisting with traffic movement. It had the particular advantage of running close to the science park to which the hon. Lady referred and the Cambridge regional college which thousands of students attend daily. Sadly, that initiative died away because Railtrack could not be enthused about the idea.
Disagreements about cost have also come to the fore. Even if my dearest wish came true and the line was opened—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Paice: Even the reopening of the railway line would not make the dramatic improvement that we want. The hon. Member for Cambridge—I do not say this in a partisan spirit—is living in cloud cuckoo land if she believes that public transport could solve the problems of the A14, although it would make a contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said, the A14 must continue to be a vital link in the nation's arteries.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice: I would rather not, as I know that the Minister wants a good amount of time, although I may give way in a moment.
I entirely endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire that we should not wait three syears for the study. The hon. Member for Cambridge wrongly said that the previous Government removed the A 14 from the programme of improvements. The previous Government removed from the programme only the section of the road between the M11 and the


A10, which forms part of the Cambridge northern bypass in my constituency. My hon. Friend was referring to the section between Cambridge and Huntingdon, which was removed from the programme by the current Government. Now that I have corrected the hon. Lady, I happily give way.

Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was arguing for an earlier study. I did not say that greater use of public transport would substantially reduce the amount of traffic on the A14, although I do believe that a study is needed to determine whether that would be the case.

Mr. Paice: A study certainly is needed more urgently than the Minister has suggested in answers to parliamentary questions.
A significant length of the A 14 remains within my constituency; it stretches almost from the Girton interchange with the M 11 to the Suffolk border. As I acknowledged, the previous Government removed from the improvement programme a section of the Cambridge. northern bypass. That decision was partly influenced by the public inquiry at the time into an application to build a superstore on the northern fringe of Cambridge, and by the possibility that that superstore would contribute to the improvement of the A14.
I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his decision to reject that application—that took a weight off the minds of many of my constituents in the villages of Histon and Impington. However, it also removed the possibility of any financial contribution to the improvement of the northern bypass, where the traffic problems are almost as severe as they are between Cambridge and Huntingdon.
The problem affects not only road users, however. The northern bypass cuts close to much housing, so noise is also a serious problem. Despite the fact that my constituents in Histon and Impington and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire in Girton and further east in Bottisham have experienced a huge increase in the amount of traffic on the A14 since the opening of the A1-M1 link, nothing has been done about noise.
I have pursued the matter for some time. The problem goes back to 1972, when a public inquiry into the construction of the road recommended the erection of noise screens. We are still waiting for those screens. I have tried several times over the years to persuade the Minister's predecessors of both parties, and the Highways Agency, to take action. I keep being told that it cannot be done unless there is a new road. The fact is that the A14 is, effectively, a new road because, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has said, it is now taking a vastly increased amount of traffic compared with what it was designed for in 1972. We then had the excuse that there would be a new shopping centre.
Later, the Minister told me to wait for the White Paper, which I did. However, there is still no real progress on how to address the serious problem of traffic noise affecting many of my constituents. How much longer will they have to wait for the screening which was promised in the 1972 public inquiry? I accept, as the Minister will point out, that my party has been in government for much of the period since then. But I still make the point—

particularly as the Government have taken the further improvements out of the programme—that although the Minister asked me to wait for the White Paper, we still have had no answer to the problem of noise.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for allowing me to contribute, as we have a serious problem. We have a Minister responsible for roads, although it seems that the construction of roads is virtually disappearing at present. I hope that the Minister will consult her colleagues about how to address a major problem.
This is, as we have pointed out, a problem that faces all of us who live and work in and around the Cambridge area; but it also affects businesses all over the country that use that road. Some vehicles come down the east coast on the A1 from Scotland and wish to go through the Dartford tunnel, or to east London. Others go from Birmingham to Felixstowe port, accounting for a vast amount of HGV traffic using the road. The A14 is a major part of the nation's road system, so I hope that the Minister can encourage us in the belief that it will get better.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I begin my thanking the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for his seasonal greetings, which I reciprocate. I am in no position to know whether I have responded to the majority of Adjournment debates during this Session, but I am fairly confident that whoever holds that debatable prize is from my Department.
I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for his generosity in affording time to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). All three contributions have highlighted the problems over a wide range of areas caused by congestion on our roads network. The speeches touched on the impact of congestion upon our environment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge referred to the concerns of her constituents and the impact that congestion has on business—a point made also by the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire and for South-East Cambridgeshire.
The call for speed in tackling the problem came from all three hon. Members, who highlighted the desperate need for a strategic approach to transport and traffic. That is why the Government took the time we did over the roads review, and why we issued the first comprehensive transport document—the White Paper—for two decades. It is abundantly clear to everyone that we must move away from the old predict-and-provide system for roads, and we need a much more integrated approach to dealing with managing our roads system so that there can be a flow of traffic.
As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, we are talking about a road that links the country to many vital ports of both ingress and exit. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out that it is part of the national road network, and spoke of the trans-European links, reminding us that the road serves the national network, as well as being depended on by local residents.
It is abundantly clear that the old predict and provide is not a way of tackling our problems of traffic and transport, not only in the short and medium term but in


the long term. There were recurring themes in all three speeches this evening, concerning accidents and congestion. All three urged speed on the part of the Government with regard to the multi-modal study promised to this section of road.
New unpublished Highways Agency work that has just been completed covering the years 1995–98 shows a rate of 0.17 personal injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres on the A14. That is the same as the national average. The severity ratio has dropped in those three years to below 18 per cent., which is three quarters of the national average. The accident record of the A14 is no worse than the national average for all-purpose dual-carriageway roads.
I know that that is of absolutely no comfort to anyone who has suffered, or fears suffering, an accident. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the tragedy of a fatal accident. The Highways Agency has plans to improve safety on the route. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, traffic flows on the Cambridgeshire section are the highest on the route, and the proportion of heavy goods vehicles is twice the national average. We share the concerns about safety.
In 1995, the Highways Agency commissioned a study from consulting engineers Thorburn Coiquhoun to investigate accidents and congestion on this length of the A14 and propose safety measures. The first stage of the safety improvements was carried out in 1995–96, when speed cameras were provided to help to reduce traffic speeds.
Further safety-related measures to be carried out by next spring include various junction improvements, with small-scale widening, improved signing with advisory speed limits, and the laying of anti-skid surfacing at off-slip roads. An acceleration lane is being constructed on the eastbound carriageway of the Hemingford Abbots junction. Signing and lining improvements are being provided in the Girton interchange to improve lane discipline and the flow of traffic. Queue warning signs will be provided on the Cambridge northern bypass, and work is being done to identify further safety improvements.
A programme of improvements to the lay-bys is planned for next year, as the accident study showed that many accidents were associated with lay-bys. Investment in better information for drivers is also planned. West of Huntingdon and the A1, schemes are being prepared to change four existing single-level junctions between Thrapston and Brampton to grade-separated junctions. The Highways Agency has just reached agreement with Cambridgeshire police on the provision of additional speed cameras, to be funded by the agency, to supplement the two already on the A14 at Lolworth and Hemingford Grey. Those new units will be erected by the spring.
As part of its brief for improving the planning of highway investment and improving services, and in support of the Government's integrated transport and land use planning policies, the Highways Agency has embarked on a series of route management strategy trials to examine routes from various operational standpoints. The whole of the A14, from the M1-M6 to Felixstowe, is one of those trial routes.
The trial began in April 1998, and is due to conclude in April 1999. It is being taken forward in partnership with local authorities, the police, other transport providers

along the route corridor, road users and environmental interest groups. We expect the results to point to further measures to improve traffic management, network control and information for drivers. The agency now has a toolkit of measures that it can use, and it is operating as part of our framework for integrated transport.
Before I move on from those short-term improvements to the longer-term future for the A14 in Cambridgeshire, I want to look back briefly to the past. Under the 1989 "roads for prosperity" initiative, improvements were proposed from west of the A1 through to widening of the Cambridge northern bypass. Although consultants did a great deal of preliminary work on the schemes, little serious progress was made. None of them even reached the first major stage of scheme preparation where the public are consulted on alternative alignments.
That is a sign that major change to the A14 in Cambridgeshire is not a straightforward proposition. There are very substantial environmental and technical issues, particularly around Huntingdon, the M11 and north of Cambridge. Successive reductions in the programme 'reduced the scheme from motorway to all-purpose trunk road standard, and finally, in 1996, the scheme for widening the A14 Cambridge northern bypass from the M11 to the A10 was withdrawn entirely.
On the A14 in Cambridgeshire, we therefore inherited proposals for grade-separated junctions west of the A1, and major schemes east of the A1, costing around £200 million, which had been withdrawn or shelved. We consulted widely on our proposals for integrated transport and the roads review, and produced our policy statements in July and a seven-year targeted programme of improvements—TPI—for trunk roads. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked whether we had applied our five new criteria to the A14 before we withdrew it from the targeted programme of improvements, and I can assure him that we did so.

Mr. Lansley: The application of the criteria for those roads included in the TPI has been published. Will the Minister undertake to publish the judgments made by the Highways Agency on the A14, so that we may consider, and if necessary challenge, them, because they are often qualitative?

Ms Jackson: I should be happy to do that, but I understood from what the hon. Gentleman said, and the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, that speed was of the essence. I cannot see what purpose would be served by asking anyone to refer back to a decision that had already been made, when what I have heard tonight is that the hon. Members wish to urge the Government to make progress on the issue.
I am sure that all hon. Members agree that it is not possible to achieve the desired result overnight. Any solution will take time. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has argued tonight that the Government's multi-modal study proposal should be not in the second tranche of such studies but in the first. I shall come to that proposition later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman now seems to be arguing that we should go back and attempt to unpick a decision that has already been made.


He implied that the decision was somehow rushed, or that the road was not tested against the criteria against which all other roads have been tested, but that is not the case.

Mr. Lansley: I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the purpose of publishing the criteria, the application of which could be instrumental in how the multi-modal study is constructed. Some work on the study could be short-circuited, because, if it is apparent that, for example, the use of some modes of public transport or the environmental impact could be improved by upgrading the A14, we could move immediately towards some of the conclusions of the multi-modal study, instead of having to go through all the criteria ab initio.

Ms Jackson: I apologise if I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but it seemed that the final sentence of his previous intervention suggested that the criteria could be challenged, and that led me to believe that he was asking to go back rather than forward.
The junction improvements between Thrapston and Brampton, west of the A1, will be taken forward as safety schemes. However, the major schemes east of the A1, which are of most concern to the hon. Gentleman, were not sufficiently well advanced to be contenders for the targeted programme of improvements. Major road projects on the scale being considered are bound to require the full process of public consultation, preferred route selection, statutory orders and a public inquiry before going ahead. Those processes all take time.
As I have said in a slightly different way, we want to move away from a piecemeal approach to transport investment, and to find long-term solutions. The old approach of simply trying to build our way out of problems on our roads is discredited, and we need to consider the role that modes such as public transport can play, as the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said.
Those hon. Members, and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), have spoken of the potential of a railway line between Cambridge and St. Ives. We have announced, as part of the outcome of the roads review, a programme of studies to consider the most urgent problems not tackled by the targeted programme of improvements. One will be a multi-modal study of the Cambridge-Huntingdon corridor.
The multi-modal studies will examine the contribution that all modes can make to tackling transport problems, while supporting regional strategies for land use and economic development over the coming decades. We will thus consider the A14 from Cambridge to the A1 in the round, taking into account not only road aspects and options but rail possibilities and bus proposals. We have no preconceptions about the likely range of measures that could emerge from the study. We intend to produce solutions that consider all the problems and all the options, and we are not going to be dictated to by pressure to keep pace with traffic growth by building more and more roads.
In taking the studies forward, we intend to consult widely, and to involve a range of interests, so that, as far as possible, there is ownership and support for the

solutions that emerge. Each study will have a steering group, chaired initially by Government offices for the regions, and including the regional planning bodies, regional development agencies, the Highways Agency, transport providers and users, and environmental organisations.

Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Lady consider consulting not only the regional planning conference, but Cambridgeshire county council? The section of road to which she refers is in Cambridgeshire, and it is the competent body. I hope that she will give the council a greater status and role in consultation on the study.

Ms Jackson: It would be highly unlikely for Cambridgeshire county council not to be represented on one of, if not all, the bodies to which I referred. Clearly, there must also be consultation with the users, and with environmental organisations.
The results of the studies will be considered by regional planning bodies as part of the regional transport strategy that will in future be an integral part of regional planning guidance. When my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister signs up to a regional transport strategy, he will be showing that the Government endorse the investment priorities in the strategy.
As to the timing of these studies, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety announced in another place last Thursday the programme for the targeted programme of improvements and the proposals for taking the studies forward. Regional planning conferences are being asked for their views on the coverage of the study programme, and the timing and scope of the studies. We are seeking replies by 29 January, and will decide the final programme quickly after we receive all the views from the regions.
We propose to take forward a programme of about 26 studies in total. Those are major, resource-intensive pieces of work, so it will not be possible to take them all forward in parallel. The smaller studies, such as the Cambridge-to-Huntingdon A14 road—which, although complex in the considerations that need to be taken into account, is simple in that it deals with only one corridor route—would probably begin, in a second tranche, in 2000 or soon after. However, we shall be happy to consider alternative timetables put forward by the regional planning bodies. I know that that stretch of road is a priority for the regional bodies.
Our approach to the trunk road programme is a realistic one. Unlike the previous Administration, we shall not produce a wish list, or attempt far more projects than can be delivered. We have heard tonight in the contributions from Cambridgeshire Members a graphic illustration of that approach.
We have defined a new role for the Highways Agency as network operator, giving greater emphasis to encouraging the best use of the network. With the agency's recently established structure of area managers, it is well organised to maintain the network and develop essential safety schemes in the shorter term. Our studies will lead to effective longer-term transport solutions that


are both affordable and deliverable. We shall put making better use of existing transport infrastructure, supporting public transport and managing demand before new construction.
I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and the other hon. Members who have spoken for bringing the A 14 in Cambridgeshire to the attention of the House. It is

an important matter, with wide implications not only for the immediate area, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. I shall ensure that my noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety is made aware of this evening's debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.